>But if it's not delivered they get their money back. . .
Nope.
Backers get refunded if a project doesn't meet the stated funding goal [1]. Once the goal is met and the money has been collected it's between the backers and the creators. [2]
"It's the project creator's responsibility to complete their project. Kickstarter is not involved in the development of the projects themselves."
1: Seems to me that lowballing the base goal while piling on a bunch of stretch goals would be a questionable way of gaming this as a creator.
Kickstarter reviews applications to determine a realistic floor for the funding goal, to prevent or at least greatly reduce that gaming. They wouldn't let you launch a campaign to start a new SpaceX with $10,000, for example. Otherwise everyone would circumvent the system with a campaign for $1 and then stretch goals, as you say.
Source: an online acquaintance who ran a Kickstarter campaign for a video game, and had to revise his initial funding goal upwards by several multiples at Kickstarter's insistence.
Those are extreme examples. A $10k SpaceX is obvious, virtual panhandling with a $1 goal is just as obvious.
I think "gaming" a system implies a reasonably intelligent exploitation.
Something like creating a Kickstarter "for" a sequel to a well-regarded game and setting the actual delivery of that sequel as a top-end stretch goal. The immediate funding goal could only deliver an expansion to the original game. The intermediate goals might be something like a new engine for the not necessarily delivered sequel. Such a project could collect its goal several times over before being asked to deliver what it purports to.
This has been done. It's essentially advertising one thing (the Kickstarter title) and delivering something else in the fine print (the goal structure).
A simple rule restricting the Kickstarter title and promotional blurb to be representative of the immediate funding goal only would go a long way toward addressing this. Restricting the dollar ratio of the initial goal to the top end stretch goal would probably help as well.
I'm sure the review process addresses some things, but how effective can it really be? The breadth of projects types and sizes is too wide and too many will fail (won't provide any return on the cost of a review).
If you're a creator, and collect a lot of money to make something (with some level of risk), there's a chance you'll spend the money trying but still fail -- this is a very real prospect especially if you're trying something technical that hasn't been done before.
Then what? They can't give the money back; they don't have it anymore. Forcing them into bankruptcy would basically kill Kickstarter.
So their only option is pretty much what they did -- with the course-correction added about a year ago that now they emphasize the fact that projects may fail.
Nope.
Backers get refunded if a project doesn't meet the stated funding goal [1]. Once the goal is met and the money has been collected it's between the backers and the creators. [2]
"It's the project creator's responsibility to complete their project. Kickstarter is not involved in the development of the projects themselves."
1: Seems to me that lowballing the base goal while piling on a bunch of stretch goals would be a questionable way of gaming this as a creator.
2: http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarte...