[k-mcgrady]

>> "Then what's the incentive to participate at all?"

Someone believes they can create a product you want. They can only create it if you give them some money to get going. The incentive is a product you want getting built. Do you want this thing enough that you're willing to risk $10 backing it? I think for a lot of people that's enough incentive.

[wubbfindel]

Not even a VC backs a project purely because they believe in it - they look for the potential return.

[k-mcgrady]

A VC invests large amounts of money (which isn't their own) for financial gain. That's very different to chipping in $10 of your own money for something you want to see built that probably won't be built otherwise.

[zanny]

I disagree. VC's put money in enterprises to get more money out. But their transaction is just money -> time -> more money. Kickstarter isn't the solution (there needs to be a platform that has legally binding contracts that the funded party deliver within some time frame or face fines / reimbursement of funds for fraudulence or negligence, the same way some investors can go after their interests if they abuse the money) but what people want is money -> time -> thing they want.

And I think it is the only way to produce information anyway, so refining the technique and recognizing its value is economics is huge.

[Retric]

The NPR model where they may or may not stay on the air regardless of your donation is a much better long term model for kick-starter than pre-orders. IMO, the best way to keep the idea alive is to make the retail versions of the product cost significantly less than those pre-orders.

Something like: Support Baldur's gate III, donate 100$ and get a retail version of the game when it comes out. (estimated retail value 50$)

The idea being your making it clear your doing something other than shopping when you donate to a kick-starter project.

[thefreeman]

A VC is an investor. A Kickstarter is a donation. That attitude is a big part of the problem.

[jrochkind1]

Not 'even' a VC? Of course not a VC!

There are plenty of kickstarter projects that people fund because they want to see it happen, with the 'gifts' being just an extra spur.

But NOT the technology ones. The technology ones are pretty much all pre-sales, with people spending money only to get a product, indeed.

But they're presales on something that doesn't yet exist. With no contractual obligation to actually deliver it.

I suspect the tech projects have a much higher rate of failure (==not getting delivered) than the 'art' projects. But also that the tech projects take in much more $$ than the 'art' projects, meaning more money for kickstarter's 5% cut too.

[aplusbi]

This is no different except that the ROI is not money. It's a product.

[JeremyBanks]

Do you even know what Kickstarter is?