When Kickstarter Projects Go Missing

On Friday, we posted about Kickstarter's new rules of engagement, including some new rules under which some of the most popular Kickstarter projects to date might never have surfaced. But what about ones that make it to the site, then disappear? Wired takes a look at what happens to those Kickstarter projects that for one reason or another get yanked from the site. (DMCA complaints apparently are often that one reason.)

Comments

I've got the solution

[wonkey_monkey]

But it'll cost, ooh, I dunno, let's say $100,000 to do it.

I don't get the point of Kickstarter

[GeneralTurgidson]

Call me a scrooge, but the idea of donating money to projects that will eventually charge you to purchase the product they produce seems ridiculous to me. On top of that, there is no guarantee that the project you donate to will see the light of day. Honestly, can someone tell me why this is such an appealing option?

Re:I don't get the point of Kickstarter

[Bieeanda]

Most Kickstarters for digital or physical goods include pledge tiers that offer the item under development at a below-release cost. It's a risk either way: there's the possibility that the project won't come to fruition (and you're out twenty bucks), or it will and it'll cost you fifty post-launch.

In a lot of cases, the Kickstarter project will be their only big sale as well-- a lot of the stuff being touted is seriously boutique, to say the least.

Re:I don't get the point of Kickstarter

[Sir_Sri]

It's like investing, but without the prospect of cash return, it's more 'investing in future entertainment' than future financial rewards. You may get goods (most of which will have more sentimental value than actual value). It's 'better' in some sense, because you know you're losing the money you give - there's no risk, you're just out the money - but it allows you to support a product that might not otherwise get made, and no one should give more than they can afford to lose, because they will definitely lose everything they give.

Also, it stabs at a lot of pricing models. I'm a games guy so I think in terms of games. If I look at games I've played the most those happen to be the paradox strategy games and the X series (I'm not linking because I'm not pitching them just take this as a statement of fact, as I am an expert in the games I have played the most), now those games have given me personally quite a lot more value than other comparably priced titles. I would have been quite happy with those products at double the price, and if I can be reasonably sure of another one in the series by offering to pay more then I'm 'investing' in my future entertainment, not my pension plan, but future entertainment.

It has the side benefit of being able to extract astronomical amounts of money (10 grand for a game) from people who have astronomical amounts of money and nothing to do with it. That money won't trickle down on it's own in some supply side voodoo, you need to create a product (fly out to meet the developers, get a statue of yourself in the game!) to sell at an extremely high margin. The rich guy gets some novelty and ego padding out of it, and the rest of us might get a game.

Re:I don't get the point of Kickstarter

[pubwvj]

"Call me a scrooge, but the idea of donating money to projects that will eventually charge you to purchase the product they produce seems ridiculous to me. On top of that, there is no guarantee that the project you donate to will see the light of day. Honestly, can someone tell me why this is such an appealing option?"

I don't think you're Scrooge but how about not quite clear on the concept.

You aren't donating. You are buying into.

We have a Kickstarter project which successfully funded to help our farm build an on-farm USDA inspected meat processing facility for our pastured pigs. See:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sugarmtnfarm/building-a-butcher-shop-on-sugarmountainfarm

Our project was successfully funded.
We're building our butcher shop. (We're about to make the next pour of concrete.)
People who were 'backers' got to choose 'rewards' which which in almost all cases are meat from our farm.
They are paying a price for product created by the project.
It's a pre-buy.
Think CSA.

It's isn't a donation.
It isn't tax deductible.
It isn't charity.

It is people backing a project that they want the product from because they feel confident in the creator's ability to produce the product.

It is important to understand that a Kickstarter project is not a store in the sense that you are not buying an existing product off the shelf but helping a creator bring a product to market. Generally you get some special aspect such as being first in line, special colors or features, added goodies like T-shirts, etc as well as satisfaction in being part of something. Most people who pledge to a project already know the creator.

So, if you're feeling Scroogish, be sure to back projects you feel confident in getting your 'reward' from. Check out the creator to see if you think they can produce.

Re:What?

[Samantha Wright]

Forgive me, but I'm pretty sure that if we didn't have the DMCA, the safe harbour provisions would be unnecessary. I don't think it can be called a "godsend" just because infrastructure providers are protected from being harassed.

Ones that Never get Delivered

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually more concerned about projects that never get _delivered._ Kickstarter puts some distance between themselves and "investors" based on just being a facilitator, but I'd be curious about the ratio of projects that never see light of day or--as I suspect is even more frequent--see it so late that the original Kickstarter pledge should be considered broken.

This specific example is interesting to me:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/airshipambassador/wollstonecraft
because I know the *author*, and believe that its persistent delays are symptomatic of his personality. I doubt it will ever see light of day, and the 90,000 dollars handed over has already been largely spent.

There's not much difference between this and showing a "simulation of a product" and yet one is banned while the other remains acceptable.

An obvious step would be to hold funds in escrow but that would seriously impact Kickstarter's minimalist business model and increase costs of funding...which might be a good thing.

Re:What?

[Xacid]

Don't like it? Submit your own story. Vote for submitted stories. Contribute instead of being a fuming leech.

Basically you invest for creative return

[Sycraft-fu]

Rather than financial return. There may be some financial aspect to it as well, you figure "I can get the game for $20 now rather than $50 when it comes out," but it is largely creative.

The projects I've backed on Kickstarter (all video games) have been because I want to see the game made. They are games that are otherwise not likely to be made. They are games I want to see though. So my money help allow them to exist, I get creative return on my investment.

Now is there risk? Of course, as with all investments. There is a risk people won't deliver. Most of the games I've back I'm pretty confident will deliver, they have small game studios behind them. However there's a couple of smaller ones. There is a risk they won't be able to deliver.

Also there's a risk that if they do deliver, you won't like what they do. I'm quite sure I'm going to dislike at least one of the games I've backed. Bound to happen, I've bought plenty of commercial games I didn't like. Again, it is a risk I have to be willing to take.

That's what people need to understand. Yes there's a risk with KS. You just have to decide if you are ok with that risk. Why do it? Well to get something you otherwise might not be able to.

In terms of games Wasteland 2 would be a pretty famous example. I really want that, I love that kind of game. The creator, Brian Fargo, already tried to get a publisher to back it. Guy is a game industry veteran, he knows the deal. However nobody was interested. Well, I (and others) backed it on KS because we want to see it. If we didn't back it, it wasn't going to happen.

It allows for more niche things to get funded. A publisher may say "Well this looks like something very few people would buy, so we won't fund it, even with a low budget." People on Kickstarter say "I don't give a shit, I'm not getting financial returns, I want it that's all that matters." So more niche products can get some funding.

Also when a project is backed 100% by people with no financial stake, it allows things to be done differently. For example all the games I've backed have pledged a no-DRM version (and the one that has launched has delivered a no-DRM version). They don't have to worry about it since there isn't a publisher to make happy, or a bank loan to pay. The backers got their game, they have nothing more they owe anyone.

So it isn't The One True Way(tm), or how everything will be done in the future or something like that. But it is cool for some things. You just have to be ok with risk. You have to accept that yes, there's a risk when you back a project. As with ANY investment, don't go in for more than you are willing to lose, and understand your potential gains are creative, not financial.