Crowdfunding and products the backers don't like

[Erik_Twice]

You might have heard of Double Fine's lighting test and all the ire that went towards it. When gamers complain about how ripped off they were when a sequel is made or how the game wasn't all that amazing, what will they do when they actually invest in it?

I think this is going to be a huge discussion buzz soon so I'm kind of preparing for it. What do you think of it?

[Flake]

Crowd-sourcing in general looks like it brings with it a LOT of potential problems. One of the things I don't understand is the responsibility (if any) a funding recipient has if they create a product that raises revenue far in excess what was donated.

Is the situation one where you as a donor basically give someone money to give them a chance to get rich?

[Erik_Twice]

Is the situation one where you as a donor basically give someone money to give them a chance to get rich?

Crowdfunding is patronage, basically.

[Nemoide]

It's been my experience from Kickstarter that most people who back projects know that they are funding something they do not have direct control over. They tend to be satisfied to be giving creative people a chance to make something they want to make something they want to make. It really is like patronage. (Plus getting various rewards to sweeten the deal always agrees with people.)

Other people (4chan) got pretty upset about how much funding I received, but I've heard nothing but good things from my backers.
I don't really know the specifics of the "DoubleFine lighting test" thing (do you have some links you can share?), but I suspect that most of the backers are probably not all that upset, despite a potential 'loud' minority.

One of the things I don't understand is the responsibility (if any) a funding recipient has if they create a product that raises revenue far in excess what was donated.

As someone who made a project and raised funding from Kickstarter, I think it's a very good thing that recipients don't have that responsibility unless they want to. I was just one guy working on his own trying to get CDs made so I can sell them at a convention in July. I ended up getting 10x more than I asked for, but there wasn't anything I could easily do as a stretch goal; I had a pretty tight time-limit and was already trying to make the best product I could. Some creators make stretch goals, but IMO this should only be done by people who really know what they're doing and be well-defined from the start. You can't guarantee a better product just because you have more money to put into it, especially if you're not a professional in the industry. I think forced stretch-goals could very well ruin development for personal/indie projects.

So yeah, if you see a project that has several times the initial goal and no posted stretch goals, your money probably isn't going to go towards any new features. But some people still like to show extra-support to creative-types (and/or get rewards you can't find elsewhere), so they'll still do it.

[Erik_Twice]

I don't really know the specifics of the "DoubleFine lighting test" thing (do you have some links you can share?), but I suspect that most of the backers are probably not all that upset, despite a potential 'loud' minority.

Basically they posted a preview video that was later called a "lighting test" and many thought the graphics sucked and everything was garbage. It was later taken down so I haven't been able to find the original video. Here's a hate page:

http://3point3mdollargame.blogspot.com.es/

I think forced stretch-goals could very well ruin development for personal/indie projects.

Couldn't agree more.

[Flake]

I think forced stretch-goals could very well ruin development for personal/indie projects.

That sentiment might be a 'have your cake and eat it, too' situation, though. Kickstarter already feels like it is legally very murky - people are essentially investing in a company with no guarantees of a product being successful and no recourse if their money is misused...all while forgoing any claim on profits!

I can see where having to offer stretch goals might be a bother but a donor could look at those and get an estimate on the competency and commitment beneficiary. To simply say 'give me as much money as you can so I can do what I want' without presenting a tiered game plan would turn me off even more than the current model already does.

[Hobie-wan]

I think forced stretch-goals could very well ruin development for personal/indie projects.

Indeed, moving goal posts can ruin things. See: Duke Nuke'em