James Pond Kickstarter!

[Guyra]

James Pond is back! Or at least, he will be, if they get the funding for the game!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gameware/james-pond-pond-is-back

They've gotten the rights for the title, and they've got the original creator behind the series involved. It will apparently be a classic James Pond game, continuing the story from James Pond 2: Robocod.



Thought I'd let you guys know, since there was no topic about it. ;)

[wiggyx]

Odd. I don't recall those being very good games, much less memorable enough to warrant a reboot :/

[Bojay1997]

I'm gonna pass on this one. While Robocod had its moments, the rest of the series was pretty mediocre and the fact that the creator being actively involved is a stretch goal is ridiculous.

[blue lander]

What's the stupid pun title going to be for this one?

[Guyra]

Odd. I don't recall those being very good games, much less memorable enough to warrant a reboot :/

I've honestly just played the first game, and just a little. But what little I played of it, I thought was good. :)



I'm gonna pass on this one. While Robocod had its moments, the rest of the series was pretty mediocre and the fact that the creator being actively involved is a stretch goal is ridiculous.

I agree that it being a stretch goal to get the creator actively involved, as you say, isn't exactly awesome. But if you think about it, the man does need to be paid. £30k is one year's worth of wages. If he's going to be actively working on the title, and not just helping out a little bit here and there, he'd need to stop doing what he's currently working on to do this. The other option would be to have the initial funding goal £30k higher, which would make it less likely to succeed at all.



What's the stupid pun title going to be for this one?

I guess it is James Pond: Terror Fin. Not sure if that's just a working title, though. And I don't know how many will get it, either. (And it's more of a non funny word play, anyway.)

[StoneAgeGamer]

STEP 1: License mediocre retro gaming franchise
STEP 2: Get someone to draw up some concept art
STEP 3: Put up a KickStarter
STEP 4: ...
STEP 5: Profit

[BricatSegaFan]

STEP 1: License mediocre retro gaming franchise
STEP 2: Get someone to draw up some concept art
STEP 3: Put up a KickStarter
STEP 4: ...
STEP 5: Profit

+1
This

[JSoup]

Odd. I don't recall those being very good games, much less memorable enough to warrant a reboot :/

Pretty much my first thought after reading the thread title.


STEP 1: License mediocre retro gaming franchise
STEP 2: Get someone to draw up some concept art
STEP 3: Put up a KickStarter
STEP 4: ...
STEP 5: Profit

Obviously we need to do reboot some crappy games to help fund the site.

[BricatSegaFan]

Pretty much my first thought after reading the thread title.



Obviously we need to do reboot some crappy games to help fund the site.

Who wouldn't want to take free money from people? Then charge em again once the game is made? Hmmm Yea let's reboot bubsy.

[wallydawg]

Somebody needs to get a Wacky Wheels kickstarter going

[Guyra]

Who wouldn't want to take free money from people? Then charge em again once the game is made?

What? Who's charging anyone twice?

[BricatSegaFan]

What? Who's charging anyone twice?

I dunno dlc who knows? Its a joke

[Tupin]

Oh boy, a James Pond Kickstarter!

Next, Bubsy the Cat! And then Aero the Acrobat! And hell, while we're at it, get another Blinx game funded!

Just because you can Kickstart something doesn't mean you should.

[Bojay1997]

What? Who's charging anyone twice?

It's not really charging twice, but it is asking people to pay for the development process and then once that's done, the developer gets to sell the game again for a profit, so it's charging the greater community twice in a sense.

[Smashed Brother]

20 years ago we saw Pond complete his final mission and for many of us we've been waiting for the next installment to come along.

Lmao! Have we?

[BricatSegaFan]

It's not really charging twice, but it is asking people to pay for the development process and then once that's done, the developer gets to sell the game again for a profit, so it's charging the greater community twice in a sense.

See he knows what I'm talking about

[Greg2600]

Complain all you want, this is only the beginning. It's next to impossible to get venture capital for a video game like these. Plus paying for licenses only add to the costs. This is the only way these kinds of remakes will ever get made now.

[StoneAgeGamer]

Complain all you want, this is only the beginning.

Maybe, but if these don't meet there goals it may also be the end. Either that or we will start seeing them with a lower goals, which would make them even more suspicious in my mind. KickStarter fatigue will set in eventually, if it hasn't already.


It's next to impossible to get venture capital for a video game like these.

There's a reason for that.


Plus paying for licenses only add to the costs.

Maybe, but probably not. We have no idea what a James Pond license cost. The license fee may be conditional. i.e. Owner gets a % of sales. Its really a no lose situation of the owner of such a license because otherwise it will be sitting there doing nothing anyways. He was probably shocked to see any interest in the property. Lets be honest here. The only reason someone would waste their time with a River City Ransom or James Pond license is to get more people to bite on the Kickstarter and to get more hype for the project. It gets the nostalgia juices flowing. There is nothing about putting James Pond in the game's titles that will actually make it a better game. There have been so many great indie platformers that have come out in the last 5 years and most of them did not need to be propped up by some mediocre retro gaming franchise. Many of those also didn't ask for KickStarter money.


This is the only way these kinds of remakes will ever get made now.

No its not. It may be the nail on the coffin for James Pond remakes, but not the nail in the coffin for more desirable franchises. My problem really isn't someone making a James Pond game. My problem is the method at going about making the game I do not think its conducive to making any game, let alone a good game. When people are just gifted something they very rarely spend the money wisely and that's why so many of these projects fail or do not live up to what they originally claimed. That $150K will dry up quickly. In the end though people can spend there money on what they want and if it meets its goal, the public has spoken.

[Guyra]

It's not really charging twice, but it is asking people to pay for the development process and then once that's done, the developer gets to sell the game again for a profit, so it's charging the greater community twice in a sense.

See he knows what I'm talking about

I'm not really able to see the logic there. The first people who pay, gets to choose how much to pay, and they get the game - and possibly some limited edition stuff, depending on how much they pay. Do you think that it should be free afterwards? To all the people who didn't pay in the first place? Is selling for profit a bad thing? And what is this "greater community" you mention? Is it the group of consumers interested in this product?

Honestly, I really don't see the logic. Please, enlighten me.

Because it's really no different than a company making a game available for preorder, and then selling the game to people who didn't preorder, too. The only difference is that the money from the preorder goes into developing the game - and for most games on Kickstarter, it's the only possible way for them to be made in the first place. So I really don't see that as a negative thing.

[Metalwario64]

KickStarter fatigue will set in eventually, if it hasn't already.
It has for me, now. The Mighty No. 9 is okay, but when every internet "celebrity" asks for money (at least a couple like AVGN had actual goals), and every random person wants to remake any old game, it's being ran into the ground.

[wiggyx]

Does this have to turn into ANOTHER kickstarter bitching and moaning thread?

Don't like kickstarter? Don't support it. Every thread that mentions the site doesn't need to become a soapbox.

[StoneAgeGamer]

Does this have to turn into ANOTHER kickstarter bitching and moaning thread?

Don't like kickstarter? Don't support it. Every thread that mentions the site doesn't need to become a soapbox.

Welcome to internet forums, their back bone is bitching and moaning. :) If we all agreed on these forums it would get boring fast. From a business stand point I actually find the topic interesting. I do agree though, this topic was about the KickStarter and not about the issues with KickStarters. We should probably leave it to people who actually want to talk about the potential game.

[Tupin]

This isn't about complaining about Kickstarter.

It's about a franchise nobody asked for getting funded by one, and us being confused.

[InsaneDavid]

Somebody needs to get a Wacky Wheels kickstarter going

Blasphemy! Skunny Kart remake first!

[Metalwario64]

This isn't about complaining about Kickstarter.

It's about a franchise nobody asked for getting funded by one, and us being confused.
I'm not even really complaining about Kickstarter itself, but it looks like Mighty No.9's success is starting to give more people the idea that they could fund any retro, or retro-styled game, as more and more odd choices have popped up lately.

[JSoup]

I'm not even really complaining about Kickstarter itself, but it looks like Mighty No.9's success is starting to give more people the idea that they could fund any retro, or retro-styled game, as more and more odd choices have popped up lately.

Well, given proof over the last two years, it's not so much an idea as it is an absolute.

[Tupin]

I'm not even really complaining about Kickstarter itself, but it looks like Mighty No.9's success is starting to give more people the idea that they could fund any retro, or retro-styled game, as more and more odd choices have popped up lately.
The difference is that Mighty No. 9 is essentially supporting one of the most famous developers ever and are in general using it as a way to give a middle finger to Capcom for treating him and their fans like crap.

This is just a reboot of a franchise that no one likes.

[eskobar]

Pfffffff .... James Pond ? .... It wasn't so bad but hardly the best choice to reboot a franchise. Kickstarter is great in some ways ... and in others I think is making developers much more greedy and lazy, I dislike the celebrity developer asking money trend because many of them could easily get their project funded by many publishers but they don't want to split the cake with no one :roll:

I have supported 2 kickstarter projects:

Class of Heroes 2 UMD Physical Edition - failed but publisher still releasing umd soon.

Amikrog - success

[Bojay1997]

Does this have to turn into ANOTHER kickstarter bitching and moaning thread?

Don't like kickstarter? Don't support it. Every thread that mentions the site doesn't need to become a soapbox.

Who said they don't like Kickstarter? I think it's great and I just supported my 48th campaign this week. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some serious discussion about the limits of what people think it should be used for or the perceived abuses by some campaign creators. Also, many of the other forums I am a member of have a single Kickstarter news thread and you don't really get much discussion because nobody feels like people are advocating for particular campaigns. For some reason, people keep opening new threads here every few weeks to talk about each campaign. As such, I don't think it's inappropriate for people to post more general things about Kickstarter, positive or negative, in each new thread.

[Bojay1997]

I'm not really able to see the logic there. The first people who pay, gets to choose how much to pay, and they get the game - and possibly some limited edition stuff, depending on how much they pay. Do you think that it should be free afterwards? To all the people who didn't pay in the first place? Is selling for profit a bad thing? And what is this "greater community" you mention? Is it the group of consumers interested in this product?

Honestly, I really don't see the logic. Please, enlighten me.

Because it's really no different than a company making a game available for preorder, and then selling the game to people who didn't preorder, too. The only difference is that the money from the preorder goes into developing the game - and for most games on Kickstarter, it's the only possible way for them to be made in the first place. So I really don't see that as a negative thing.

The logic is simple. Many of these recent campaigns are playing on nostalgia to get people to pay for 100% of the game development and the campaign creators want to take on none of the risk. That means some of them are feeling ok with either not finishing development (i.e. Clang), delivering extremely late or delivering less than commercial quality games and at the same time, having the ability to generate future profits without sharing any of that profit with the people who backed the game. I understand there are some legal barriers there still, but in normal financial markets, the financiers and the entrepreneurs share the risk and in exchange, they both reap the potential rewards or lack thereof. Here, the people assuming all of the risk don't participate in any of the rewards and never will, beyond the possibility of maybe receiving a copy of the finished product or some other small token after letting someone else use their money for development at zero interest for several years. That type of thing is fine for artistic endeavors or things that are charitable in nature, but it seems that commercial products are now being financed on a regular basis through Kickstarter and that to me is a problem, especially in an area like games where even well funded commercial games can go terribly wrong. Perhaps what needs to happen is that project creators need to pledge that future profits will be plowed back into other campaigns where previous backers receive those products as well. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I certainly don't think it's reasonable for someone to accept money from me to create a commercial product with no guarantee of ever delivering anything and if they do deliver, to then receive 100% of any future profits with no further obligation to me.

[CelticJobber]

James Pond?

What's next? A Kickstarter campaign to make a sequel to Sewer Shark or perhaps Shaq Fu?

[DaveMMR]

A Kickstarter campaign to make a sequel to Sewer Shark?

I would actually contribute to that campaign...

[wiggyx]

Who said they don't like Kickstarter? I think it's great and I just supported my 48th campaign this week. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some serious discussion about the limits of what people think it should be used for or the perceived abuses by some campaign creators. Also, many of the other forums I am a member of have a single Kickstarter news thread and you don't really get much discussion because nobody feels like people are advocating for particular campaigns. For some reason, people keep opening new threads here every few weeks to talk about each campaign. As such, I don't think it's inappropriate for people to post more general things about Kickstarter, positive or negative, in each new thread.

I never said that there shouldn't be discussion, just that it should be in an appropriate place. Highjacking someone else's thread to soapbox isn't appropriate.

[blue lander]

I'd happily donate to a Wacky Wheels remake before I'd ever give a dime for a James Pond one. The James Pond games weren't that bad when compared to other Amiga platformers, but that's not saying much. So many developers tried to create a Mario or Sonic style "mascot platformer" for the Amiga but none of them stuck. I'd put James Pond somewhere below Zool and Superfrog, but above unplayable crap like Oscar.

[Bojay1997]

I never said that there shouldn't be discussion, just that it should be in an appropriate place. Highjacking someone else's thread to soapbox isn't appropriate.

Disagree. This is a discussion forum and posting criticisms about Kickstarter in general is always appropriate in a thread about a Kickstarter campaign as those criticisms apply to that particular campaign. I've never understood the thin skin some people have for anyone who might possibly disagree with them. If you don't like discussions, there are plenty of "news" websites out there where you'll never have to read anything other than factual content.

[Gameguy]

James Pond?

What's next? A Kickstarter campaign to make a sequel to Sewer Shark or perhaps Shaq Fu?
There's already a Shaq Fu sequel.

http://shaqdown.com/

[Neb6]

Wow. I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of title-bashing on this one.

James Pond 2 : RoboCod was a great game. Try either the Amiga or GBA versions of this one, read the U.K. reviews on it, and then maybe re-evaluate it.

As for the 'name' not being a big enough property to kick start a sequel to, I think the main criticism is going to come from North American gamers. In UK, and Europe you'll likely find a much bigger market for it since it was a highly-rated and well-known game in its time.

My last point: Bringing the original creator of the game in on it is perfectly logical. After all, who better to consult if you want a game that can truly be considered a sequel and have the feel of the original. I've never heard anyone complain about bringing in the director of a motion picture to shoot the sequel, so why complain about bringing in the original game designer.

[Gameguy]

James Pond 2 : RoboCod was a great game. Try either the Amiga or GBA versions of this one, read the U.K. reviews on it, and then maybe re-evaluate it.
I actually like the James Pond games, though most feel generic. The thing is out of all of the existing games, only Robocod is considered to be good. Robocod was re-released on the GBA, and the Nintendo DS. None of the other games were re-released. This new kickstarter is supposed to take place after Robocod. What about James Pond 3? I guess it was too shitty to acknowledge it exists, I don't know why even this kickstarter ignores it. So out of four existing games, only one is liked by most people. That doesn't make me feel confident about this kickstarter.

Technically there's already 5 games in the series, there was a fifth one released in 2011 on iphones by a different company. It sucked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Pond_in_the_Deathly_Shallows

The complaints about the original creator is that he'll only be fully involved with the project if they get an extra 30,000 pounds with stretch goals, people are expecting him to be fully invloved with this at a minimum, not as a bonus. Plus out of all the games he was involved with, only one was really good.

[Greg2600]

I never said that there shouldn't be discussion, just that it should be in an appropriate place. Highjacking someone else's thread to soapbox isn't appropriate.

As soon as a KS thread gets created, it's off to the races. Who can cut it down with a machine gun first?! Of all the Kickstarter threads lately, only the Mega Man remake has escaped being lampooned. That's largely because that project is so popular, and assumed to succeed that no one dares dump on it. Which is kind of ridiculous because that group could make the game without crowd-funding. And so the question really is what do the naysayers feel is EVER worthy of crowd-funding in video games? Not much it seems.

Like I said, the more niche/obscure franchises are not going to be revived through private equity. No chance, because you'll never sell enough games to make much money. Certainly not enough for private capital markets to get involved. Another example is the Nibbler "King of Kong" style movie, which was dumped on here. They asked for only $50,000 to fund it and they barely got over 53K so it will be made. But that's a project that many felt was worthy of a life-line, and could never be made without Kickstarter.

[Bojay1997]

As soon as a KS thread gets created, it's off to the races. Who can cut it down with a machine gun first?! Of all the Kickstarter threads lately, only the Mega Man remake has escaped being lampooned. That's largely because that project is so popular, and assumed to succeed that no one dares dump on it. Which is kind of ridiculous because that group could make the game without crowd-funding. And so the question really is what do the naysayers feel is EVER worthy of crowd-funding in video games? Not much it seems.

Like I said, the more niche/obscure franchises are not going to be revived through private equity. No chance, because you'll never sell enough games to make much money. Certainly not enough for private capital markets to get involved. Another example is the Nibbler "King of Kong" style movie, which was dumped on here. They asked for only $50,000 to fund it and they barely got over 53K so it will be made. But that's a project that many felt was worthy of a life-line, and could never be made without Kickstarter.

So the standard now is if someone can afford to do something, their Kickstarter is ok to criticize, but if they can't, it has to be treated as sacred? How do you even know who has financial assets and who doesn't? Have you studied the tax records of every video game Kickstarter creator? How do you know that niche/obscure franchises can't generate enough money to make them worthwhile to someone other than crowdfunders? The availability of cheap alternative platforms like iOS and Android has certainly opened the doors wide and prior to the whole crowdfunding stampede of the past two years, that's where many niche titles were being released, to commercial success I might add. Indeed, as someone else pointed out, there was even an original James Pond iOS game released in June 2011. Heck, the original game series was published by EA worldwide on multiple platforms, so it's not exactly some obscure one-off that nobody remembers.

I think what disappoints me the most about your position is that it ignores the fact that for literally decades, people have been making niche video games, movies, music and every other kind of creative content without anything resembling crowd-funding or even private equity for that matter. That includes revived classic titles some of which had far smaller audiences than what has been crowdfunded recently on Kickstarter. I just think that many of these recent project creators see Kickstarter as any easy way to get paid for doing something that previously would have been a labor of love. It's something I struggle with deeply because there are many people here and elsewhere that have given freely of their time and labor to create amazing games and other creative content without asking for a penny in return. I do believe that entrepreneurs should be rewarded for their efforts, but it has gotten to the point where they want to take on none of the risks and that frankly is not how capitalism works. It is how art and charity functions to some extent, but if these are art or charitable projects funded through a patronage system then the creators shouldn't turn around and sell that same project commercially once the project has been created. The projects should either cease distribution once the backers have received their copies or the profits should be put in trust for additional projects perhaps even by other creators that will be given freely to the prior backers.

[Greg2600]

Bojay, you're accusing me of suggesting who can or cannot "afford" to make a game, when you wrote that the this and other project are looking to fund 100% of the game development. Neither you nor I know what the costs are, or what one could have made on a James Pond iOS game. That iOS game cost 99 cents, and was a piece of trash. If self-funding means we'll only get horrible cell phone quality games, that would suck.

Secondly, you're getting rewards for what you donate. Many of the lower priced tiers are nothing but the game, for a price that you would likely pay to purchase in the first place. In reality, you're still going to get something for your donation. It's not a freebie. That said, several of these projects have completely nonsensical funding goals. For those I do agree with you that they want TOO much with TOO little risk. And I have said that about them.

[Bojay1997]

Bojay, you're accusing me of suggesting who can or cannot "afford" to make a game, when you wrote that the this and other project are looking to fund 100% of the game development. Neither you nor I know what the costs are, or what one could have made on a James Pond iOS game. That iOS game cost 99 cents, and was a piece of trash. If self-funding means we'll only get horrible cell phone quality games, that would suck.

Secondly, you're getting rewards for what you donate. Many of the lower priced tiers are nothing but the game, for a price that you would likely pay to purchase in the first place. In reality, you're still going to get something for your donation. It's not a freebie. That said, several of these projects have completely nonsensical funding goals. For those I do agree with you that they want TOO much with TOO little risk. And I have said that about them.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your double standard appears to be that purportedly the creator of Mighty No. 9 can afford to do this game without any help and that therefore they deserved to get more scrutiny than they received. I don't know if the James Pond iOS game was good or not as I never downloaded it. I also don't know how much money was made on it or how much it cost them to make it. That doesn't change the fact that many iOS games that weren't crowdfunded have sold millions of copies and made their creators very rich. It's clearly a viable option if someone has a good concept and the ability to create a compelling game and is willing to risk their time and maybe a little of their money to create such a game.

As for your other point, the rewards you get vary widely by the project. On the one extreme you have some projects with fairly expensive tiers that are mostly digital rewards that cost very little to provide. On the other extreme, I have contributed to some projects where the rewards cost almost as much or more than was contributed and that becomes a significant problem. I certainly don't think there is any harm in discussing the specific rewards in a Kickstarter thread nor is there any harm in discussing the general problems with Kickstarter in any of these threads as even the best projects have some concerns that warrant further discussion.

I just don't agree with your premise that regardless of the project, people will complain and that such complaints damage the classic community or even the projects themselves. I have backed more than my share of projects and I have no problem sharing my concerns via the comment boards on Kickstarter for each project or in e-mails directly with the project creators. In fact, on several campaigns changes have been made for the better IMHO in direct response to some of the things I have posted. Crowdfunding is all about an open dialogue and whether that's here or elsewhere, I certainly don't think anyone should be actively trying to mute that discussion.

[wiggyx]

Disagree. This is a discussion forum and posting criticisms about Kickstarter in general is always appropriate in a thread about a Kickstarter campaign as those criticisms apply to that particular campaign. I've never understood the thin skin some people have for anyone who might possibly disagree with them. If you don't like discussions, there are plenty of "news" websites out there where you'll never have to read anything other than factual content.

You've managed to completely misinterpret what I said and the point I was trying to make. Congrats.


Also, here's a platform for general complaints about Kickstater (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?169407-Kickstarter-Complaining-Thread&highlight=kickstarter) (where they can easily be ignored by those that don't care to read them)

[Bojay1997]

You've managed to completely misinterpret what I said and the point I was trying to make. Congrats.


Also, here's a platform for general complaints about Kickstater (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?169407-Kickstarter-Complaining-Thread&highlight=kickstarter) (where they can easily be ignored by those that don't care to read them)

I didn't misrepresent your point at all. You are seeking to crush discussion by sending people to another thread. There is no reason healthy and vigorous discussion can't happen within this thread. You can ignore the comments just as easily here as you can elsewhere and frankly, I think people would be pretty angry if someone required that every Kickstarter project was discussed within one single thread as it is on many other sites including Atari Age. All the factual information about this project was already listed in the OP and can easily be accessed by clicking through to the actual project, so if you don't want to engage in a discussion, please feel free to stop there.

[Neb6]

I think both Greg2600 and Bojay1997 are making valid points (and I don't mind that it's a debate in this particular thread).

On the one hand, kickstarters are nice since they allow for the completed creation of games or other projects that likely wouldn't get finished otherwise. On the other hand, the 'investors' in those projects seem to bleed a bit too much.

I think perhaps a happy medium between the two arguments would work best for future kickstarters. There must be a way to keep the cost to the funders minimal and still get the project off the ground. In big business, those who invest would often get a percentage (albeit small) of the profits. That doesn't really happen with kickstarters.

As for not allowing the product to be manufactured for sale beyond the group that invested in it.... Well, I'm not sure that's the best approach. The project has the right to succeed and flourish. Others should be allowed to purchase it if they wish. Not everyone is 'tuned-in' to the various kickstarters that pop up from time to time. Some people miss the boat, but I don't think they should be excluded.

So part of this I think has to do with allowing the initial investors to share in the profits to some extent. Another aspect is the idea of still allowing for an element of risk and constraint on the part of the developer, in order to shift things away from a pure artist-and-patron model.

Having worked on music for the last 15 years, I can safely say that projects without investor funding really end up being 'hobbies' and are limited by the time people can spare from their 'real' jobs. It certainly slows the rate of output and more often than not is just a money-losing venture. Kickstarters have the ability to put projects on more equal footing with corporate-backed projects. It's just a matter of ironing out the bugs and making sure that those that contribute get something worth their dollar.

I think it's safe to say that some contributors are just happy to help make the project happen.

[Bojay1997]

I think both Greg2600 and Bojay1997 are making valid points (and I don't mind that it's a debate in this particular thread).

On the one hand, kickstarters are nice since they allow for the completed creation of games or other projects that likely wouldn't get finished otherwise. On the other hand, the 'investors' in those projects seem to bleed a bit too much.

I think perhaps a happy medium between the two arguments would work best for future kickstarters. There must be a way to keep the cost to the funders minimal and still get the project off the ground. In big business, those who invest would often get a percentage (albeit small) of the profits. That doesn't really happen with kickstarters.

As for not allowing the product to be manufactured for sale beyond the group that invested in it.... Well, I'm not sure that's the best approach. The project has the right to succeed and flourish. Others should be allowed to purchase it if they wish. Not everyone is 'tuned-in' to the various kickstarters that pop up from time to time. Some people miss the boat, but I don't think they should be excluded.

So part of this I think has to do with allowing the initial investors to share in the profits to some extent. Another aspect is the idea of still allowing for an element of risk and constraint on the part of the developer, in order to shift things away from a pure artist-and-patron model.

Having worked on music for the last 15 years, I can safely say that projects without investor funding really end up being 'hobbies' and are limited by the time people can spare from their 'real' jobs. It certainly slows the rate of output and more often than not is just a money-losing venture. Kickstarters have the ability to put projects on more equal footing with corporate-backed projects. It's just a matter of ironing out the bugs and making sure that those that contribute get something worth their dollar.

I think it's safe to say that some contributors are just happy to help make the project happen.

You raise some great points. Apparently Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites will eventually be able to offer campaign contributors a share of potential profits if the SEC finalizes all of the implementing legislation of the Jobs Act. Unfortunately, that wouldn't be retroactive, nor would such shares necessarily be open to the general public. In any event, I do agree with you about crowdfunding being a great equalizing tool, I just worry that we've reached a point where there are very few truly original and creative projects being pitched and a lot of quick cash-ins on nostalgia or existing private companies using the novelty of Kickstarter to obtain interest free financing for projects they could otherwise finance with loans, lines of credit or ordinary venture capital.

[StoneAgeGamer]

I think both Greg2600 and Bojay1997 are making valid points (and I don't mind that it's a debate in this particular thread).

...

Excellent post.

[MarioMania]

How many Kickstarter are going up?

People just like to throw there money away

[Neb6]

How many Kickstarter are going up?

People just like to throw there money away


As a punk-rocker-turned expert salesman once told me, "People will buy something at the point it is perceived as more valuable than the money in their pockets." In this case, the trigger is nostalgia.

I do agree though -- there certainly are a lot of kickstarters appearing lately. Perhaps there really does need to be a kickstarter project filter to determine who actually needs the money for the project and the chances of the project even being completed....