Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I wouldn't. If you didn't want me to have the extra money, then why did you give it to me in the first place?

It could have been a project where the final cost is unknown. The person could have lacked other bills.

As well with Kickstarter project there is an idea that extra funding goes towards developing the product in more comfort and with windfalls. So that if something bad happened, as is often the case, that the project doesn't immediately failed. It can also mean flexibility, time, and quality.

That is what extra funding can mean.

Unfortunately what I am understanding here is that any extra funding of a project does not go into the project itself. It is pocket money and that is to be expected. That is... kinda a terrible concept.

So yeah people should stop giving to Kickstarter the second any project hits its goal is what I am understanding from you. It is the logical conclusion.

[MorleyDev]

I'd put forward that since you are not investing in the sense that you have any power or authority over the product, and since it's a commercial endeavour and not a charity, any left over funds would go straight into the profits category.

Then again I always give the minimum to get a copy of the item, so that may colour my views of it more as a pre-pre-order system.

[Neonivek]

I'd put forward that since you are not investing in the sense that you have any power or authority over the product, and since it's a commercial endeavour and not a charity, any left over funds would go straight into the profits category.

In otherwords Double Charging. Also you can do Charities off of kickstarter too (you just cannot make "Donate-a-thons" off of it) and you could pocket that money too. (Ohh dear holy the unfortunate implications of that)

Anyhow, it is simply terrible that this really is the expectation of Kickstarter. That it isn't "Crowd Funding".

[olemars]

Also you can do Charities off of kickstarter too (you just cannot make "Donate-a-thons" off of it)

I thought that was expressly forbidden in the guidelines.

[Darvi]

It could have been a project where the final cost is unknown. The person could have lacked other bills.

If somebody can't make a realistic estimate of their own costs then they fail at Project101 and probably won't even be able to finish their project anyway.

As well with Kickstarter project there is an idea that extra funding goes towards developing the product in more comfort and with windfalls. So that if something bad happened, as is often the case, that the project doesn't immediately failed. It can also mean flexibility, time, and quality.

That is what extra funding can mean.

So... stretch goals?

Unfortunately what I am understanding here is that any extra funding of a project does not go into the project itself. It is pocket money and that is to be expected. That is... kinda a terrible concept.

So yeah people should stop giving to Kickstarter the second any project hits its goal is what I am understanding from you. It is the logical conclusion.

The concept of profit is obviously unknown to you and you should feel like an arsehole for wanting to boycott good ideas.

Anyway the entire idea of KS is that pledgers get to donate a certain amount of money and in return get to pick a pledge reward. As long as they get the promised rewards, there should be no need to complain because you got what you wanted. Yes, there is a risk factor involved, but in return you can get benefits that a buyer of the finished product couldn't get.

Also you can do Charities off of kickstarter too (you just cannot make "Donate-a-thons" off of it)

I thought that was expressly forbidden in the guidelines.

It is.

[Shades]

In otherwords Double Charging.

Anyhow, it is simply terrible that this really is the expectation of Kickstarter. That it isn't "Crowd Funding".

How is that double charging? and how is getting more than is needed not crowd funding?

Besides which I'm sure people would be more annoyed that they don't get whatever it was they pledged for, but do get a refund, than not getting the refund of whatever is left over.

[tryrar]

Ok, so you want me to provide a kickstarter to mock? Well here you go

It's actually not BAD, per se, but what really gets on my nerves it the choice to use a robot voice for most of the video

[Neonivek]

So... stretch goals?

Not nessisarily. Stretch goals are something extra beyond that the ordinary and often Stretch goals are much less then the requirement (Hense why a few developers actually ignore whether or not their stretch goals were met. Since it was just a token sentiment). General quality, time, and flexibility are not stretch goals.

If somebody can't make a realistic estimate of their own costs then they fail at Project101 and probably won't even be able to finish their project anyway

A lot of projects can never have concrete funding requirements as the exact amount can change due to unknown variables that cannot be seen until the adventure has started and reached certain checkpoints. For example if you were renovating a house.

The concept of profit is obviously unknown to you and you should feel like an arsehole for wanting to boycott good ideas

They still get profits, they in fact get a lot of profit after the kickstarter. If they didn't then their project obviously wasn't all that good.

If their only source of income was Kickstarter overfunding and they weren't simply using it to provide a cheaper service requiring mass funding in advance (As with most miniature Kickstarters) then there was an issue.

Anyway the entire idea of KS is that pledgers get to donate a certain amount of money and in return get to pick a pledge reward

No that is the enticement. That is how they convince you to donate and to donate more at certain levels.

The concept of profit is obviously unknown to you and you should feel like an arsehole for wanting to boycott good ideas

Boycott? What do you mean. The project was funded. It is a commercial product and it will be sold as a commercial product.

Where is this "Anti-profits"?

All this means is that people should stop "Funding" a project after it ceases to be funded.

how is getting more than is needed not crowd funding?

The difference in buying and funding.

Besides which I'm sure people would be more annoyed that they don't get whatever it was they pledged for, but do get a refund, than not getting the refund of whatever is left over.

Ehhh, I am more concerned with the fact that there is a atmosphere that allows and encourages pocketing large swaths of your funding and not putting it towards development and how that is one of the possible ways Kickstarter can go wrong.

Not so much that there exists profits off of kickstarter as kickstarter is often used as a platform for pre-orders and even allows another kickstarter if a project needs even more funding (but I am unaware of the mechanics). As well Kickstarter pre-order mechanics is often outright required for anything that needs to be mass produced unelectronically due to the expense of buying casts and prints.

Though the hard part about arguing that there exists an area of ethical slipping within that system is hard when you have no idea how to argue it (like me) and keep floundering about. Then start being surprised when people hyperbolate against you, as in me, and realise too late that they don't exactly mean what they say but rather have used less sophisticated examples against you in arguement creating terribly flawed models.

Mind you as always I believe that when you put something on kickstarter you are asking to fund a project. If a person had an honest knowledge that the funding, and they may fund over the donation amount, was in fact not going towards the project. They may hesitate or at least fund the minimum required amount, and if they did fund extra it would be a thank you (money gift).

When funding goes over the project goal there should be, in my mind, a sense of obligation to try to use that money on the project within reason and within the scope you are willing to work within. Where any left over can be pocketed.

When someone sets the goal above the amount they need and immediately pockets overfunding and intentionally under funds his own project with the funds he recieved. He is doing something wrong with the money people have lent him. Even if it is perfectly within the scope of Kickstarter and in many ways encouraged since any money not used on development is kept with no system to prevent it.

Which really is my only point.

It's actually not BAD, per se

You didn't have one did you?

[Darvi]

If somebody can't make a realistic estimate of their own costs then they fail at Project101 and probably won't even be able to finish their project anyway

A lot of projects can never have concrete funding requirements as the exact amount can change due to unknown variables that cannot be seen until the adventure has started and reached certain checkpoints. For example if you were renovating a house.

And costs that don't belong to the project are relevant how?

The concept of profit is obviously unknown to you and you should feel like an arsehole for wanting to boycott good ideas

They still get profits, they in fact get a lot of profit after the kickstarter. If they didn't then their project obviously wasn't all that good.

If their only source of income was Kickstarter overfunding and they weren't simply using it to provide a cheaper service requiring mass funding in advance (As with most miniature Kickstarters) then there was an issue.

I don't think anybody who isn't a scammer uses kickstarter as their sole source of income with a given project.

Anyway the entire idea of KS is that pledgers get to donate a certain amount of money and in return get to pick a pledge reward

No that is the enticement. That is how the๖y convince you to donate and to donate more at certain levels.

Yes. But if you donate and get what you asked for there should be no need to complain.

The concept of profit is obviously unknown to you and you should feel like an arsehole for wanting to boycott good ideas

Boycott? What do you mean. The project was funded. It is a commercial product and it will be sold as a commercial product.

Where is this "Anti-profits"?

All this means is that people should stop "Funding" a project after it ceases to be funded.

"Okay guys, they got what they asked, stop giving them money!""Screw you Neonivek, we still want to get those awesome rewards and we don't want to wait until the entire thing is done. You won't stop us."
And you'd be boycotting them by depriving them of the extra profits that people evidently want to give them. And what the fuck are "anti-profits"?

The mistake you're making is that you think that KS cannot be directly used for any kind of profit at all.

[Neonivek]

The mistake you're making is that you think that KS cannot be directly used for any kind of profit at all

No I'll admit I've been completely disillusioned. I kinda had an expectation for Kickstarter that I never knew was completely untrue of Kickstarter.

Finding out that it is kinda all about the profits and that overfunding isn't put back into the project and isn't expected to... was a pretty big shock to take given that I actually am one of the larger defenders of kickstarter and the only faults I seen in it previously was on people abusing the system.

But there is no real way to abuse it now because it isn't what I thought it was. It kinda sucks now...

!""Screw you Neonivek, we still want to get those awesome rewards and we don't want to wait until the entire thing is done. You won't stop us."

Make sure you increase your donation outside the donation minimum. I wouldn't suggest it though because unless you just want to put extra cash in their pockets for no reason.

As well with what I now know about kickstarter and that overfunding is not used on the project. People who intentionally do not pick up rewards should logically withdraw their funding when the project reaches that point unless they just want to line their wallets. That money could go to a project that could actually need it and possibly also get funded.

[Darvi]

It's kinda why there are pledge and stretch goals. "Yeah we need this much to make shit, and we can make our shit better if we get this much more. We don't know what to do with any additional funding but we'll take it anyway because not taking the money would be unfair to the people who pledged earlier."

I also wouldn't say disillusioned. Just human.

[Shades]

Besides which I'm sure people would be more annoyed that they don't get whatever it was they pledged for, but do get a refund, than not getting the refund of whatever is left over.

Ehhh, I am more concerned with the fact that there is a atmosphere that allows and encourages pocketing large swaths of your funding and not putting it towards development and how that is one of the possible ways Kickstarter can go wrong.

But you don't provide an alternative.
Either you have to cancel someone's donation, which means they don't get what they pledged for or you have to honour the pledge and have to keep the money.

I suppose you could argue that you refund a small percentage to each person but that quickly becomes unwieldy and probably incurs more in transaction fees that there is left in most cases.

Unless each kickstarter had a registered charity/second kickstarter that all excess would go to, which would have to be something everyone would be happy that their donation goes to.

Of course in both these last two cases ideally the person wouldn't have got the funding and would sell the final product to those who were too late to pledge.

The complexities involved make it seem to me that the most sensible option is for all excess to be considered as a pre-order (generally at a reduced price) and so profit for the creators, which is the situation we have right now.

[Neonivek]

But you don't provide an alternative

I don't need to

It is by no means saying that Kickstarter is wrong, so much that a project can use Kickstarter to go wrong in the way of abusing the way Kickstarter uses its funding.

I suppose you could argue that you refund a small percentage to each person but that quickly becomes unwieldy and probably incurs more in transaction fees that there is left in most cases

The largest issue is that it would create two lessening effects (made up term).

First the cut Paypall and Kickstarter takes plus Income taxes the first way. Then Paypall and Income Taxes on the way back.

Something along those lines. I am sure I can cut some of that out... but suffice it to say you want the sheer minimum amount of movement when it comes to cash.

[Darvi]

The payments aren't made until the funding period is over.

[Neonivek]

The payments aren't made until the funding period is over.

You cannot lessen someone's donation >_<

But yes that, if possible, would be a possible mechanic.