It's safe to say that I'm never going to use Kickstarter

[Dave]

I've been asked about doing Kickstarters enough times that I feel I need to nip it in the bud. KS and crowdfunding platforms like it (Indiegogo, Gofundme) have some major flaws. Moral flaws, frankly.

First, the positives: There have been some spectacular successes using Kickstarter. Some project creators are prime examples of efficiency, communication, competence and and all that (Monte Cook, Tom Tullis, just to name two). More power to them. That's what Kickstarter should be like every time.

But a growing number of people have discovered the risks of this form of venture capitalism, and are swearing off crowdfunding -- as they should. They're discovering that the "contract" between creators and backers has no legal teeth, and there is no clear definition for when a project has no hope of fulfillment. Backers are entirely on their own when demanding refunds, or even determining when it's time to demand a refund. In virtually every case, there is no money in the project fund to be returned. Backers realize that they have paid someone to learn how to make mistakes, including learning how to mismanage other people's money, learning how to fail at navigating the complexities of manufacturing, learning how to fail at estimating shipping costs, and learning how to fail at meeting deadlines. Some crowdfunding project creators are simply con artists.

It's very hard to tell what kind of project creator you're dealing with, though. Kickstarter can't/won't/don't investigate their project creators, so it's entirely up to the potential backer to do their homework about projects and project creators before giving their money to them. (Throwing their money away, in far too many cases.) Many project creators have no experience (too many to mention), and even the ones who say they do still fail (Nystrum's three messes, Quantum RPG, They Became Flesh RPG), and fail hard (see what's happening with Torn Armor). You start with a dream and a promise, and you end up with hundreds of disappointed and angry people to whom you owe money, or a product, and have neither.

While project creators and project backers bear much of the responsibility for their own actions, Kickstarter itself (meaning, the people who run Kickstarter) must accept a share of the blame. They take a percentage of every successfully-funded project, no matter what happens after that. If the project creator was a con artist, Kickstarter takes a percentage. If the project creator is inexperienced and squanders a bunch of money, Kickstarter takes a percentage. They take their percentage not from the creator, but from the people who backed the project. The little guy gets screwed, the corporation takes a percentage.

Kickstarter does not help backers get legal aid when the projects fall through. They make it clear that backers are not "investors" in any hard legal sense. If you're upset that it's two years past the delivery date and the creator hasn't posted an update in six months, Kickstarter will send the project creator an email asking them to update or issue a refund. But that's as much as you're going to get from KS. There are no legal teeth, because you're not really investing. You're hoping. To be blunt, Kickstarter profits from other people's con jobs, sometimes, and they do not accept any financial responsibility for their role. Not yet, anyway. There'll be class-action lawsuits against Kickstarter soon enough.

When crowdfunding is done right, it's amazing. When it's done wrong -- and it is done wrong far too often -- Kickstarter shrugs its shoulders and laughs all the way to the bank. So what if a few hundred people get screwed because Joe Who lied through his teeth, or ran into unexpected problems? It's irresponsible on so many levels.

I'm not giving Kickstarter a penny to continue doing business the way it has been. Lots of us foresaw this when Kickstarter went live, and as the years have gone on we have seen the cracks in the system get wider to the point where it is now clearly broken. I think Kickstarter should set aside some of its profits to help people who have been conned (with or without good intentions) using its platform, or do something concrete in terms of protecting its customers. That would be the moral thing to do. Until it does that, I won't play their game or risk my reputation, or my customers' money, taking part in their form of venture capitalism.

But for the sake of argument, let's imagine that I started a Kickstarter project. $1,000 goal for a paper castle PDF, say. (I have no idea why I would need that much money, but hey.) I'm only human. I might get in a car wreck the week after my project gets funded (like Gripmat). Any number of things could happen that would make it impossible for me to fulfill the promises made. I'd watch my reputation (and your money) go down the drain.

To avoid that -- to take the risk out of it for myself and for customers -- for my own peace of mind I'd have to complete all of the work ahead of time, using Kickstarter as a pre-order system, fulfilling delivery of the PDF products pretty much the instant the project was successfully completed. But, in that case, why would I need Kickstarter? The fact is that I can create all of my paper models without startup funds. The fact is that even if my Kickstarter project didn't get successfully funded, I'd still have nothing standing in the way of releasing the products I was Kickstarting. The only cause I would have for using Kickstarter would be greed, to be perfectly honest with you.

So. No Kickstarter for me. I won't put you through that. I won't put myself through that. I don't need the money or exposure badly enough to compromise my principles about this. It's not worth it.

Feel free to discuss.

[gilius]

In my opinion, one big problem with crowdfunding is that so many people see them as "pre-orders," and many project owners are just glad to imply that. Doing so brings the assumption that any design issues are already resolved, production is guaranteed and it is just a matter of tossing in some money to get your product.

This is not the case for lots of crowdfunding projects and it seems to me that, as time passes, more projects are pitched while still rough in concept stages. Now, if the project lacks details, the first thing to ask is how did the project owner figure out how much to ask? Requiring this kind of information would also make it easier to spot amateurs and con artists.

On the other hand, when people think of backing the project as a "pre-order," these questions are conveniently pushed back. Kickstarter states that they cannot be used for pre-orders, which amounts to project owners not being allowed to write "pre-order" on their pitch. However, looking at game projects on that platform, many seem to imply this in one way or another.

The problem is, if you make it clear to people that backing a project is effectively putting your money on it without any real guarantee, they might think too hard about it. As you wrote, the crowdfunding platforms take their cut regardless of what happens to the project later. But that requires that the project reaches its goal...

[Dave]

Yeah, a non-investment investment in a non-pre-order pre-order. If project creators and Kickstarter itself abided by Kickstarter's terms and conditions, a huge number of the projects going right now would be cancelled.

[Parduz]

I can't evaluate the legal stuffs for things like KS... it's far beyond my english comprehension... and probably far beyond my ability to understand what it means even if it was in italian, so i trust in what you say and will discuss just the moral/ethic aspect.

What bother me a lot is when big companies uses KS for they stuffs. Just to mention one, i did'nt liked the Ogre project from Steve Jackson Game: i see KS as a help for the indie/littles producers that can't afford the production costs, not as a pre-selling system to minimize the risks for a game company.

About that little (wannabe) producers, i want to see what's there in the offer, not what they think they will do. So, i refused to pledge the Heroquest 25th edition, 'cause i was feeling that nothing was really planned.
Instead, i would have pledge a couple of gaming terrain projects 'cause all the stuffs were already designed and ready to be put in production (i would like to remember what they was... one was from that studio that build that awesome paper space maps and props.... too bad i missed the right time).

Anyway, i don't see why a paper-model producer like Dave should need KS. He does'nt need to build a mold, or make punchout carboard tokens, or cards... until the final product is a PDF or a book, made by him, i feel that a KS campaign is a way to gather the most possible money (sorry, Fat Dragon, i don't mean to be rude, it's just my opinion).

[oldschooldm]

KS works great for me as a 100% contributor/buyer. For me, I don't see it as a moral issue at all - but would never tell another what their morals should be in respect to their own behavior.

I think you might be missing one critical piece of the puzzle in your analysis: Opportunity Cost. If am a creator and only have so many hours to work on something - shouldn't I pick the best thing to work on right now (according to my personal criteria?) And if my creations are all/most of my livelihood, isn't it in everyone's best interest for me to use tools to determine one choice over another? Look at the choices WWG's principals made - "Do I keep doing terrain, or become a virtual world game company?" - they used KS to help make that choice, and then a few folks disappeared from our industry for the better part of two years.

There is a difference between pre-order and exploratory marketing. I see no problem whatsoever with someone who knows how to make X (say print-at-home papercraft terrain) using KS to find out if flavor Y (say a peasant village set) would be popular enough to be worth developing. I also have no problem with people customers deciding for themselves to crowd fund such an endeavor based on their own perceptions of the likely-hood of receiving an acceptable product in return.

Please note that the paragraphs above do not address any of the failure conditions Dave specifically names.

Frankly, I wish you (Dave) felt differently - but that's just a wish. I'd love to "vote with my money" to encourage you to complete models that you've started and shared here [oh, like that diner-boat] and funding platforms such as these have been shown to work that way on occasion.

As you've said many times here, you'd rather work on what inspires you than create something based on so-called "customer demand". That's your choice. I'm convinced you are leaving money on the table. Lots of artists do that. It's cool, but I just miss buying your stuff.

This is not an attempt to change anyone's mind, just to share some other perspectives on a rapidly shifting world of marketing. I am amazed and so happy that niche products (especially indy games), that under the "big publisher" regime of old would have never seen the light of day are getting published and building audiences. It's a fact that platforms like KS have ushered in a digital Renaissance in gaming - even in the face of some serious liability bugs. And Reaper Minis!

Besides, Dude. Seriously. A stretch goal to add fold-flat options/playable interiors to new buildings would make me drool.



Tongue in cheek:



Really! Just joking! :-)

[Christopher Roe]

Jan 25, 2014 14:57:54 GMT -9 Parduz said:

Anyway, i don't see why a paper-model producer like Dave should need KS. He does'nt need to build a mold, or make punchout carboard tokens, or cards... until the final product is a PDF or a book, made by him, i feel that a KS campaign is a way to gather the most possible money (sorry, Fat Dragon, i don't mean to be rude, it's just my opinion).

Keep in mind that labor costs money, even if the end product is a digital file, and there are often other costs as well. For example, I've had to buy fonts, commission some artwork, and pay for other things just to get some models onto the market. The UD-41 is one example, I bought the fonts used for its markings and commissioned John Bell to do the nose art for 4 different dropships. I can also see needing to commission someone to do, say, some figures to go with a set or something like that.

I know I've personally discarded several cool product ideas over the past decade because I couldn't afford to pay artists or writers something up front, and if Kickstarter had been an option for me way back in those days, I might've actually been able to make those ideas happen.

Kickstarter also offers an opportunity for creators to make sure their time is well-invested in products that people actually want to spend money on (if it's a turkey, it won't fund), actually make enough money to cover the development expenses, and not have to worry about whether or not they'll have enough sales next month to pay the bills.

As for the morality issue that Dave brought up...I don't fully agree that there's anything inherently morally flawed about Kickstarter itself. Kickstarter is just a tool, just like an ecommerce storefront is a tool. Its job is simply to be a venue for creators and backers to come together and maybe make something interesting happen. As with any tool or service, there are going to be good users and bad users, and the good users usually far outnumber the bad ones. It's just that the bad apples get more attention from the press.

[Parduz]

Jan 26, 2014 10:35:29 GMT -9 Christopher Roe said:

Jan 25, 2014 14:57:54 GMT -9 Parduz said:

Anyway, i don't see why a paper-model producer like Dave should need KS. He does'nt need to build a mold, or make punchout carboard tokens, or cards... until the final product is a PDF or a book, made by him, i feel that a KS campaign is a way to gather the most possible money (sorry, Fat Dragon, i don't mean to be rude, it's just my opinion).

Keep in mind that labor costs money, even if the end product is a digital file, and there are often other costs as well. For example, I've had to buy fonts, commission some artwork, and pay for other things just to get some models onto the market. The UD-41 is one example, I bought the fonts used for its markings and commissioned John Bell to do the nose art for 4 different dropships. I can also see needing to commission someone to do, say, some figures to go with a set or something like that.

Sure. But i said "made by him".
Let me put in this way: if i want to put up a store, an office, an activity on my own, i can't do it after the customers pays for my product. I have to invest, perhaps asking for a loan at the bank, and THEN go selling what i want to sell. That's the part i think "you" (the producer) have to do before that "me" (the customer) are ready to give you my money (and that's the exact same reason 'cause i'm an employee and not a free-lancer).

Jan 26, 2014 10:35:29 GMT -9 Christopher Roe said:

I know I've personally discarded several cool product ideas over the past decade because I couldn't afford to pay artists or writers something up front, and if Kickstarter had been an option for me way back in those days, I might've actually been able to make those ideas happen.

This is what i see as a "fair reason" to use KS: you invested your time in the project, you already KNOW what you need to bring it on the market, but you can't afford the final production costs.
You open a KS, show what you have, what you need, and what the KS money will add to the already planned project.

Basically, we both agree

[okumarts]

I too am wary of Kickstarter.

[cherno]

I don't see what the big deal is. Kickstarter makes it very clear how pledged money is to be seen both by the backer and the project creator. If people are willing to give someone else money in return for non-legally-binding promises, I won't stop them. The same goes for bigger companies using KS as a pre-order platform: It's a free market, no one has to give them any money and if they are successful because they can offer bigger rewards than an indie one-man developer, then it's up to the "customer" to vote with their wallets instead of blaming the company for offering a product that people obviously want.

As for any "cracks in the system", I'd say that a perceived increase of projects that never got completed without any money given back first and foremost has to to with the virtual explosion of Kickstarter as a crowdfunding platform in 2012. If 1000% more projects get started it's no wonder that we see more trainwrecks along the way. That being said, I don't have any hard data on the exact number of kickstarters that failed to deliver so I won't make any assumption about wether there's any statistically meaningful increase.

I have backed exclusively videogame kickstarter drives (technically these weren't KS pledged because I send money via PayPal without using KS), and all of these were fairly high-profile and had big names attached to them so I was relatively confident that I'd see these projects come to fruitition. I backed Star Citizen (Chris Roberts), Wasteland 2 (Brian Fargo) and Shadowrun Returns (Jordan K. Weisman).

[Dave]

It would make a big difference if Kickstarter had a rating system similar to what Amazon uses for third-party sellers, and what eBay uses for all users. The fact that a person can't even comment on a project unless they back it at the minimum level is a problem. In a way, Kickstarter is outsourcing its rating system to other sites around the internet, and I think it's because they know damn well that it would mean less money for them if their customers were more informed, because fewer projects would be successfully funded.

[Dave]

Jan 26, 2014 13:29:22 GMT -9 cherno said:

If people are willing to give someone else money in return for non-legally-binding promises, I won't stop them. The same goes for bigger companies using KS as a pre-order platform: It's a free market, no one has to give them any money and if they are successful because they can offer bigger rewards than an indie one-man developer, then it's up to the "customer" to vote with their wallets instead of blaming the company for offering a product that people obviously want.

It's a non-investment investment in a non-pre-order pre-order. What the heck is that? Kickstarter profits on that ambiguity, and certainly knows that it is. I won't support that.

[oldschooldm]

Jan 26, 2014 15:23:44 GMT -9 Dave said:

It would make a big difference if Kickstarter had a rating system similar to what Amazon uses for third-party sellers...

I do agree with this. I keep waiting for them to call me...

[Dave]

Yeah! Well, that really would be a big step in the right direction. I'd take back a lot of my criticisms if they'd just do something like that.

[cherno]

Jan 26, 2014 15:48:44 GMT -9 Dave said:

Jan 26, 2014 13:29:22 GMT -9 cherno said:

If people are willing to give someone else money in return for non-legally-binding promises, I won't stop them. The same goes for bigger companies using KS as a pre-order platform: It's a free market, no one has to give them any money and if they are successful because they can offer bigger rewards than an indie one-man developer, then it's up to the "customer" to vote with their wallets instead of blaming the company for offering a product that people obviously want.

It's a non-investment investment in a non-pre-order pre-order. What the heck is that? Kickstarter profits on that ambiguity, and certainly knows that it is. I won't support that.

I see what you mean, but I specifically included the word "legally" because while it's one thing how people see the whole Kickstarter pledging system, it's another how this actually has any meaning when it comes to refunds and such.

Oh and by the way, please consider making some Middle-Eastern buildings, I could use some for my Conan project

[mahotsukai]

Jan 27, 2014 3:48:29 GMT -9 cherno said:

Oh and by the way, please consider making some Middle-Eastern buildings, I could use some for my Conan project

I can recommend these.

Desert Village

Desert Fort

Not quite in the Style of DG but very versatile.

[cherno]

Jan 27, 2014 5:06:41 GMT -9 mahotsukai said:

Jan 27, 2014 3:48:29 GMT -9 cherno said:

Oh and by the way, please consider making some Middle-Eastern buildings, I could use some for my Conan project

I can recommend these.

Desert Village

Desert Fort

Not quite in the Style of DG but very versatile.

Cheers, I didn't even know these. Market stands and a well are exactly what I need.

Back to topic

[aaron]

I've never used Kick-starter either as a buyer or seller.
I have had more than one person tell me that Temporum Oblitus should be on Kick-starter but like you Dave I'm saying no way ...
I don't want to compromise my game by making promises that I may or may not be able to keep, and I certainly don't want to keep. I.e. if you give me X dollars then I will add a unit of your choosing to my game ? what if 300 people all give me X dollars? I'll be working on T.O. for the rest of my life trying to make all the units other people want? and the game will be crap because there's just to much? I wan't to keep the integrity of the game in tact and I want to keep the story solid. I want control over the final product. I don't see that happening on Kick-starter and I think lots of times the promises of the individuals involved there's just no way they can keep them, unless they have a huge production staff and millions of hours to make it work.
I won't even Pre-sell T.O. until the game is in a final state ready to be sent out with only a few tweeks. Even then my moral compass says I should take any pre-sale money and put it in an account that I won't touch until all individuals that contributed hame a copy in their hands and are happily playing. that way if something goes wrong with the final tweeks it's just a simple matter of refunding the money to the people who invested in a Pre-sale...
Also I don't want some third party company getting money from my hard work.
LOL I guess I'm just greedy LOL

[grendelsmother64]

Sounds like a simple buyer beware issue.
Maybe it could be regulated more.....but part of the appeal is the direct "early funder" to "guy with a dream" angle...and putting a lot of rules and stipulations are going to scare away creators for the same reasons that scare them away from motor and brick operations...upfront risk.

Ratings sound like a good idea... but consider the average Ks campaign seems to be to fund a work that will take months or even a year or so to finish....you're not going to get ratings anytime soon.
And I suspect anyone with a wildly successful KS campaign will be in a good positions to go a more traditional route for their next project....and keep more of the profits.
So are you going to get any really useful ratings....anytime soon...?

And from a funder's viewpoint the risk is generally pretty small anyway...20....fifty bucks maybe?
Even less if all you want to do is encourage someone's creativity and have a chance to buy in early.

Life's a risk.
If you get your kicks taking a chance by sending some schmuck a few bucks who looks like he has a good idea....and you get burned...consider it a gambling entertainment expense.
I mean real investing is really not much different...stocks go up and down with no control from you...and they don't have cool illustrations or the fun of communicating with some schmo who's really pumped to produce the next cool thing.

I'm curious....though....what percentage of Kickstarters are crapping out on their initial funders....?
Is it really high enough to be a serious concern...?
High enough to mandate insurance and crap like that...?

I like browsing the proposals....but I don't need any more stuff...so I haven't jumped in yet....

GM64

[okumarts]

Jeff Dee seems to have lots of luck with his Kickstarters. He is a hard worker though… tireless even.

[Rhannon]

Ok I try again. Last night I lost almost two hours to write two posts that at the end I lost before posting them. But some little things have changed in my life. I resumed my work after three months of convalescence ( so my free time is again very little ) and my old pc broke. So now I'm using my wife's laptop but I'm wrong to use the keys ... and I lost my post and my PM ​​for Kimerlin last night.

About kickstarter I completely agree with the Great Grendel ( in Italian this is a little rhyme, more or less ). He expressed much better than me my own thoughts.

But I' like to present again them in summary form.

Kickstarter ( or indiegogo, or ... ) isn't an online shop. A backer ( as me ) isn't buyer and a pledge isn't a pre-sell. Kickstarter is a tool. It isn't bad, it isn't good. Its use can lead to positive or negative effects. But this depends on the people. From the quality ( and honesty ) of the people, not the instrument. But how they use it.

A backer invests in a dream, on anin the making proposal. And every investment is always a risk. Who pledges take a risk. A backer doesn't receive a purchase. Eventually, perhaps, he receives a reward for his risk. If all goes well. But in the end all life is a risk. And then I like to take risks on things that I like. But if you don't like to risk ( nothing wrong ) you don't pledge on kickstarter. It is not an online shop. It's investment, it's a risk.

After about fifteen projects in which I have been pleased to participate I must say that my overall experience as a backer on kickstarter is positive. I have known Chris Birch ( Modiphius ) and his very great project, Achtung! Cthulhu ( now I'm waiting for his next project, Mutant Chronicles RPG 3rd edition, in the next two hours or so ), I have backed all Ryan Wolfe's projects ( starships' maps and deckplans ), Weird Wars Rome by Pinnacle, Interface Zero 2 by David Jarvis ( Gun Metal Games ) ... and some other really good projects. Without any problem.

Sure, some risk has gone bad. A well-known paper minis' author took my money, about 100 US dollars, ( and those of all the other backers ) and escaped ( he has disappeared, he doesn't answer the questions ... )

But this depends from the person's honesty. Not from kickstarter. And because of this investment went bad I was greatly rewarded by the availability, professionalism and honesty of the other authors. And from the great quality of their projects. I feel proud and honored to have participated. And I dream of having helped them ( a really little help ).

I'm not a producer, so I've never used kickstarter to present my projects. But I think that it is a very useful tool for any indie producer. If the project is planned well, if the founder is honest with his backers ( backers really like honesty, clarity ... about timing, about product's quality ... not great promises that you can't keep ) it's a great way. You, founders, can use RPGNow for printed products ( rpgnow print in the U.S. and UK, so there are no customs charges for Europe ). You don't have to share all your projec's details ( so no one can steals your specific ideas ), you don't have to make a special set for each backers, but at most one for each pledge level ... I think that Fat Dragon Games' kickstarter projects are a good example of a well-planned kickatarter campaign, with excellent professionalism, availability and quality.

Ciao

[Dave]

Kickstarter could be a better tool, is what I'm saying. It could do more to help inform pledgers about the risks of dealing with other people who use the tool, especially because money is on the line. Quite a lot of money.

Responsible Kickstarter project creators aren't the problem. It's that Kickstarter does nothing significant to prevent dishonest, incompetent, unreliable, pipe-dreaming project creators from taking advantage of their system. I have actually seen project creators defend their actions by claiming "ignorance about how this industry works" only after the project was funded and many months behind the expected delivery date, which to me indicates that Kickstarter is lacking something important.

Kickstarter can't/won't vet project creators, so yes, it's buyer beware. How is a buyer supposed to know if they're dealing with someone who has scammed someone else, or has set unrealistic goals?

eBay guarantees all sales and has a good feedback system. Amazon has a good rating system for its third-party sellers. These sites are also just tools, but by implementing a web reputation system (thanks for the term, OldSchoolDM!), users can "vote with their wallets" in a meaningful way by avoiding vendors that fail to live up to their promises. Bad service equals low profits, as it should be in a capitalist system. I don't know what sort of web reputation system would be the best fit for Kickstarter, but that's not my area of expertise. I do know a bit about how to build a business on a dream with very little money, however.

What really bothers me about this is that Kickstarter certainly knows that unreliable creators are a problem, and it has been going on for years now. There are solutions, and they haven't implemented them. Why? I believe it is because Kickstarter takes their percentage (as a facilitator) of pledgers' money whether the creators are honest or not, and does not hold itself accountable in any way for facilitating con jobs and putting money into the hands of people who you'd never give money to if you could see their responses to a basic job application.

In addition to a web reputation system, Kickstarter could implement a project creator questionnaire and publish their responses on their project pages. Some good questions to ask project creators (which you cannot ask directly in public unless you pledge the minimum amount and gain access to the Comments section -- that's kind of a problem too) would be things like:

What experience do you have in handling other people's money?

What experience do you have in design, manufacturing, distribution and customer service?

What other related projects have you completed in the past?

If your project is successfully funded, at what date will pledgers be able to demand a refund?

What provisions have you made for ensuring that refunds will be delivered, if that time arrives?

What are the stretch goals?

Are you personally designing, manufacturing, distributing, and providing customer service for all aspects of this project? If not, please have all of your collaborators answer this questionnaire in full.

If you announce new stretch goals during the funding period, will it affect the expected delivery date and other aspects of the project, and in what ways?

How much of the project is completed now, and how much is left to do? Please provide specifics.

In addition to all of these questions, what other risks and challenges do you anticipate in this project?


That's really a very basic questionnaire, and not nearly as thorough or rigorous as it could be, but it would go a long way toward informing potential pledgers about what they're getting into. What makes Kickstarter any different from eBay or Amazon? It's because Kickstarter is selling dreams, in this really woo-woo kind of way, and you take a risk because their site is so clean and white and green and it feels like you're doing something good to help somebody with a dream.

Capitalism doesn't operate in a vacuum. Kickstarter is not just a tool. It's a group of people making money selling an investment platform that isn't a real investment platform, that is used as a pre-order system by almost everyone, but isn't really a pre-order system.

It's crazy. When it's no longer crazy, I'll consider giving Kickstarter my business.

[grendelsmother64]

Those are all good questions Dave.
But for the majority of Kickstarter projects I've seen, the answers they'd get would scare people away...and I think mostly needlessly.
If the KS proposal had great answers to all those questions, then he's obviously an experienced businessman and he might as well go into business in a more traditional way than KS....less risk for him and likely a better return.

I think the point of KS is to take chances on folks that otherwise wouldn't be able to get a business started otherwise (because their answers to your questions wouldn't convince a bank or traditional investor....)

KS looks like it is designed for exactly these high risk types....less experience....but a passionate, cool idea just itching to find its way out.

And yeah...that makes it risky to backers....but that's the model of the enterprise.

If you're not willing to take risk, just buy your sets at RPGnow.....

Less exciting than being in the secret back room of the coolest new thing....but also less risky.....

Just my observations.

But like I've said, I've only been observing from the outside...Obviously Rhannon looks the guy to talk to here about jumping in...

But it sure looks like an exciting new world out there thru the intertubes........

GM64.

[Dave]

You really have to take a look at how much ire some of these projects are generating, the ones that are running very far behind (Far West RPG), or that appear to have been abandoned by their creators (Quantum RPG, They Became Flesh RPG), or have been clearly mismanaged (Torn Armor). I personally have never been burned by Kickstarter, since I've never backed a project. The risks are definitely too great for me in most cases, and the handful of projects I would feel very comfortable backing (Numenera RPG) just haven't been something I would actually want. But when they go wrong -- and they go wrong in more instances than most people seem to realize -- it's quite a trainwreck. Backers get livid, and they have every right to, because their trust has been betrayed. The only way to show their displeasure (beyond chewing out the project creator, which they sometimes do) is to demand a refund. But I don't think anyone's ever received a refund from an abandoned/non-completable Kickstarter. So, chewing out is what you get. Lots of anger over what? A game, the promise of fun. Guess what? Real life sucks. You lost $50, along with 500 other people. Joe Who paid his bills for a year thanks to all of you, and will never send you what you thought you were getting. And you will get no help from Kickstarter in getting it back.

If it happens once, it's a fluke. If it happens ten times, it could indicate a problem with the format. It's happened dozens of times. You can do your own research on this.

Some more un-asked-for Kickstarter advice:

If Mantic runs a Kickstarter, you're probably pretty safe. But that's not an indie company, so they're using Kickstarter in a way that's not really consistent with the spirit of the site. But whatever, you can probably trust them. Even Margaret Weis Productions is failing at some very basic things relating to Kickstarter project management (claiming not to be able to update their Kickstarter page for two months because they lost their login password -- give me a break).

If that guy Steve from Colorado starts a Kickstarter, you probably shouldn't trust him with your money unless he's got a track record, or even just a long history of posting about his great idea on some site that you frequent, and you can absolutely see his passion for the project because you have seen it outside of Kickstarter. But you should be cautious, and maybe wait for Steve to self-publish a smaller-scale version of his great idea first, before you help him go big time. Let him establish a track record.

When Joe Who or Company X starts a Kickstarter, if you know nothing about them at all, and they don't tell you, walk away. Chances are pretty good that you won't get what you paid for, or that you'll be waiting so long for it that by the time it's finished, you won't care.

This really only applies to Kickstarters in the tabletop hobby gaming realm, which is the category I follow most closely. Other types of projects may have a better success rate.

[oldschooldm]

Jan 28, 2014 22:33:24 GMT -9 Dave said:

But I don't think anyone's ever received a refund from an abandoned/non-completable Kickstarter.

Not true. No need to make it worse than it actually is - you're making good enough arguments for why you don't want to use KS and how you think they need to improve without needing to use exaggerations like this.

As a matter of record: I, myself, have read comments from some KS backers that have "failed" and returned (or offered to return) some or all of the money to their backers (at least those they could reach.)

That said, the specific cases you cite of people never-delivering-(so-far)-and-disappearing-from-the-net are also true.

Carry on... :-)

[squirmydad]

I must be lucky then, I've backed 27 kickstarters, only a few were by big kids (2 reapers, 1 Mantic, 3 FDG) and only two crapped out and didn't reach their goals so it cost me nothing at the end of the run. I've "invested" in indie games, novels, art projects, couple computer game thingies, and some miniatures. So far I've always gotten what I was promised, but that may just be luck on my part.

There were a couple of KS that I looked at where the concepts looked poorly thought out, scribbled badly on napkins, or had a badly done presentation video-that caused me to reconsider assisting them at all.

That said, I lost a bundle years ago investing in film productions that were very well made, very professional, and were dismal failures at the box office so there was no ROI. Oh well.

In the case of KS I realize that every time I hit "go" I am granting someone an unsecured loan, and I'm hoping to get something good out of it, but if it crashes I have to accept that and consider what is an acceptable level of risk for me to (maybe) get some new toys.

YMMV

[Dave]

Jan 28, 2014 23:13:24 GMT -9 oldschooldm said:

Not true. No need to make it worse than it actually is - you're making good enough arguments for why you don't want to use KS and how you think they need to improve without needing to use exaggerations like this.

As a matter of record: I, myself, have read comments from some KS backers that have "failed" and returned (or offered to return) some or all of the money to their backers (at least those they could reach.)

Fair enough. If that's the only place where I've exaggerated to make a point here, I'm doing better than I thought.

I do think that Kickstarter is the best/worst thing that's happened in tabletop gaming for a while, and I'm less upset about it than I was when I started this thread. The merits are becoming clearer to me, and the solutions to the problems do seem within reach. At this point all I can do is lobby Kickstarter to make changes for the better, and I'll do that periodically with tweets, since they're nice and public.

Hypocrite that I am, I'm going to contribute a product/artwork to an upcoming Kickstarter some of you may already be backing or know about. It's exposure for me without getting directly in the Kickstarter revenue stream. I'm kind of okay with using KS that way, since I can guarantee delivery of what the project creator is promising (my part of it anyway), and I have complete faith in the project creator as well. Kickstarter will get their percentage, and I might get some business from it tangentially. I laid in bed and wrestled with my principles for a little while before I agreed to do it. (Are they principles, then? Yoda might have words with me about this.) Ultimately I think I'm helping a friend do something worthwhile, and he's doing me another kindness in helping to promote my brand. This feels okay. A little naughty, maybe.

[fatdragontom]

Dave, I've read your points and understand why you have them, but I still believe you would do amazing with a KS campaign. If you ever decide to do one, I will be glad to help you navigate the behind-the-scenes issues with KS and help you design the campaign (and throw in a free FDG stretch goal in return for you doing that for us.) As far as the concern about not something happening that prevents you from delivering and the backers being out funds, I can only tell you what I do with mine. The KS funds go into my business bank account, I then transfer lump sums out of there to my private bank account proportionate to each pledge level's revenues once I complete that level. That way the money for the undelivered portions has not been spent.

[styxx42]

I just want to chime as a purchaser that I use KS, with great success. Like Old School and Squrim Daddy so eloquently wrote.
As a supporter of all the paper people chatting here(meaning I have spent money on most of you and your great works).
I like that I have the abilty to invest in potential with KS, but I know it can fall through.

I have, will and would support more KS paper projects.

Use KS like you use the internet.
With care.
It is neather good, nor evil. But both can be found if you look for it.
Or dont watch out for it.