11–20 of 63 posts
Take money from 'community', develop using that and get famous, get enterprise funding, stop community project and return the 'community money'. Good idea.
I was thinking exactly the same thing ... the Kickstarter backers were essentially Angel investors or VCs who put up the money but didn't get a stake in the company. That's a pretty good deal for the founders!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking exactly the same thing ... the Kickstarter backers were essentially Angel investors or VCs who put up the money but didn't get a stake in the company. That's a pretty good deal for the founders!
You never get stake in the company on kickstarter. At least they got their money back now.
I won't go so far to say that the campaign was set up with false pretenses - I think the business probably just moved away from the consumer market - but the reality is that the backers funded the early stage growth of this company with no return-on-investment.
Take money from 'community', develop using that and get famous, get enterprise funding, stop community project and return the 'community money'. Good idea.
From my experience seeing games on kickstarter, this is pretty much what is reasonable to expect. I mean the whole model is 1. Get money from community to fund game development 2. Sell the game again after, for extra profit, because why not And somewhere along the way there's usually a total mis-estimation of funds and resources At least here something was given back to the "community"... The entire crowdfunding plat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You never get stake in the company on kickstarter. At least they got their money back now.
I understand how Kickstarter works ... I was more referring to the fact that those who funded their Kickstarter campaign didn't get a return on their investment (there are plenty that lose). I won't go so far to say that the campaign was set up with false pretenses - I think the business probably just moved away from the consumer market - but the reality is that the backers funded the early stage growth of this compa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand how Kickstarter works ... I was more referring to the fact that those who funded their Kickstarter campaign didn't get a return on their investment (there are plenty that lose). I won't go so far to say that the campaign was set up with false pretenses - I think the business probably just moved away from the consumer market - but the reality is that the backers funded the early stage growth of this compa…
There is never any ROI on Kickstarter... You are always throwing your money away. If you are lucky you get some stickers or a discount on the final product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You never get stake in the company on kickstarter. At least they got their money back now.
I understand how Kickstarter works ... I was more referring to the fact that those who funded their Kickstarter campaign didn't get a return on their investment (there are plenty that lose). I won't go so far to say that the campaign was set up with false pretenses - I think the business probably just moved away from the consumer market - but the reality is that the backers funded the early stage growth of this compa…
In that sense, having an investor take care of the funding so that the product comes to market is a good thing for the kickstarter pledger. Presumably a successful kickstarter campaign helped secure the investor. It's a success from that perspective.
From the time of original kickstarter campaign, the interest from the sum would've been more than enought to sustain the company given crazy interest rates in Chinese black banks
I recently ordered a pinebook and intended on installing remix OS on it. I think I will choose differently now though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is never any ROI on Kickstarter... You are always throwing your money away. If you are lucky you get some stickers or a discount on the final product.
You're still not getting my point - if the Kickstarter backers had instead written a check as an Angel investor, they might have lost their money OR they might have recognized an ROI.
Yes, that's how kickstarter works. As an "investor" you just get screwed.
There is no risk, you already know that your money is gone. It's not special for this case. Or what do you mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my experience seeing games on kickstarter, this is pretty much what is reasonable to expect. I mean the whole model is 1. Get money from community to fund game development 2. Sell the game again after, for extra profit, because why not And somewhere along the way there's usually a total mis-estimation of funds and resources At least here something was given back to the "community"... The entire crowdfunding plat…
> The entire crowdfunding platform is absurdity The totality of this statement is what's absurd. There's some good stuff on Kickstarter etc., but Sturgeon's Law applies: 90% of everything is crap.
Imagine Amazon, but instead of next-day delivery you get next-year delivery and there's a 90% chance your product won't be delivered at all: That's what crowdfunding is.
Traditionally, when funding a product, investors got a portion of the earnings to offset their risk. Crowdfunding has managed to eschew that in favor of just getting you to give people money just in case they can come up with a product. If the bet works out, great, you get a product, but so do I, and I didn't give the creators any money in advance. If it fails, you're out your money.