Kickstopper

[Entitled]

Is there a way to know if there is a positive trend in the size and/or the successfulness of the kickstarted projects? There are a few stats on the website, but I can't seem to find some of the information I would be more interested in.

Kickstarter as a whole has increased it's traffic from [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/2011-the-stats] $27 million in 2010, to $99 million in 2011, to $319 million through 2012. [http://www.kickstarter.com/year/2012#overall_stats]

Assuming sustainable linear growth, it would go beyond $1 billion in 2013 and $3 billion in 2014.

It was not growing evenly, here is a chart [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/happy-birthday-kickstarter] about the growth until two years ago, (note that the games section is practically nonexistent), and here are some charts [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/the-year-of-the-game] from 2012 showing how the games section exploded after Double Fine.

Here are some stats [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/blockbuster-effects] about the spillover effect of a single work's backers exploding and increasing everything else's funding as well.

 

[UnSub]

One problem I have with this is that too many people view Kickstarter as the end of the process ("Yay, we got Kickstarted!") and not the start. Kickstarter is a fund-raising platform, not a content delivery platform. It matters a lot less about how a title gets funded than what it actually delivers.

I looked at this last year for video games (and please note I think the delivery rates for every Kickstarter 'genre' should be considered separately) and up to October last year only about 1 in 3 Kickstarted video game projects actually release something.

http://unsubject.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/slide4.png?w=551&h=193

I'm going to go back and update these figures later, but the issue is delivery. No-one will care that the Veronica Mars movie was Kickstarted if it turns out to be terrible.

And yes, I do think the Veronica Mars Kickstarter raises some ugly precedents. As Bob points out, it's potentially a market research technique where we pay the studio to tell them how popular something is.

On the flip side, it also means a lot of screaming from fans on all elements that go into the project that's been Kickstarted. People already go stupidly nuts about a character's skin colour / gender / hair style, so imagine what happens when those same people have paid $100 before casting had even started. "I backed your Kickstarter AND YOU OWE ME!" will become the battlecry of the high-disposable income jerk.

 

[Jamous]

I can certainly understand the fear that this system will be subverted. Industries are good at subverting things that are beneficial to us. Look at the games industry, the industry of our medium of choice for crying out loud! We get some fairly dodgy stuff happening even from good things; DRM issues, microtransactions in games that are already full price and more. If Kickstarter starts getting abused with the sort of mindset that many people appear to have in the games and films industries then it could kick up (heh) a serious shitstorm. It could drive funding away from smaller independent projects that Kickstarter is meant to help in favour of remakes, and people milking our love for various franchises. It might never happen, but the simple fact that it -potentially- could is in itself very scary. I certainly don't want to see us go down that road.

 

[Entitled]

If Kickstarter starts getting abused with the sort of mindset that many people appear to have in the games and films industries then it could kick up (heh) a serious shitstorm. It could drive funding away from smaller independent projects

If the more abusive projects would stir up a shitstorm, how would they drive people away from smaller independent projects?

Unless you are implying that the small independent projects are the ones abusing their audience and stirring up a shitstorm.

It could drive funding away from smaller independent projects that Kickstarter is meant to help in favour of remakes, and people milking our love for various franchises. It might never happen, but the simple fact that it -potentially- could is in itself very scary. I certainly don't want to see us go down that road.

This has nothing to do with either big or small projects "abusing" Kickstarter.

Kickstarter is meant to fund projects that fans are interested in helping to make.

If fans are interested in remakes, and milking franchises, then Kickstarter was always meant to fund remakes and franchises.

 

[Jamous]

snippetysnipsnip

I didn't put that all that clearly. When I said driving funding away from smaller projects getting it remakes instead I meant in the same way that Warner Bros does not need the 2 million from Kickstarter should they have chosen to make the Veronica Mars movie, but it got funded all the same. If you already have the money (more than enough by a fair ways, in fact) to make the movie/game/whatever I do not think you should be using Kickstarter to fund it.

As to my earlier comment about the shitstorm driving away from smaller independent projects? If people started to routinely fuck with the system then people would likely stop using Kickstarter, or at least use it substantially less frequently. This would hurt the smaller projects who -need- Kickstarter whilst leaving larger companies, those abusing the system, no worse off.

I think my problem was just saying remakes whereas I meant those that can already get access to a budget via movie studios etc.

 

[Entitled]

I didn't put that all that clearly. When I said driving funding away from smaller projects getting it remakes instead I meant in the same way that Warner Bros does not need the 2 million from Kickstarter should they have chosen to make the Veronica Mars movie, but it got funded all the same. If you already have the money (more than enough by a fair ways, in fact) to make the movie/game/whatever I do not think you should be using Kickstarter to fund it.

Your hypothesis is based on a false premise, that there is a limited amount of backer money that all projects are fighting for against each other.

In fact, we have data indicating [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/blockbuster-effects], that big "blockbuster" Kickstarter are drawing so many new backers to the site from their own fandom, that they are actively benefiting other projects by increasing Kickstarter traffic.

As to my earlier comment about the shitstorm driving away from smaller independent projects? If people started to routinely fuck with the system then people would likely stop using Kickstarter, or at least use it substantially less frequently.

I think my problem was just saying remakes whereas I meant those that can already get access to a budget via movie studios etc.

Well, then it's depending on what do you really mean by them "fucking with the system".

Because making remakes that people want wouldn't drive people away, and likewise, big studios making movies that they could afford to make, evidently isn't driving people away.

It has no reason to, people aren't actually harmed by Warner being able to afford a Veronica Mars movie, if anything, it helps as a guarantee that the film is in professional hands, and not depending on some poor artist trying not to go bankrupt.

 

[mdqp]

Kickstarter as a whole has increased it's traffic from [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/2011-the-stats] $27 million in 2010, to $99 million in 2011, to $319 million through 2012. [http://www.kickstarter.com/year/2012#overall_stats]

Assuming sustainable linear growth, it would go beyond $1 billion in 2013 and $3 billion in 2014.

It was not growing evenly, here is a chart [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/happy-birthday-kickstarter] about the growth until two years ago, (note that the games section is practically nonexistent), and here are some charts [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/the-year-of-the-game] from 2012 showing how the games section exploded after Double Fine.

Here are some stats [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/blockbuster-effects] about the spillover effect of a single work's backers exploding and increasing everything else's funding as well.

Thanks! The statistics on the website were just a small part of the whole, and when it re-directed me to the blog, I didn't find what I was looking for, either.

 

[Verlander]

100% agree. This is risk management at it's lowest - they can make something, and sod quality control, because it's paid for up front. Using Kickstarter (and by extension, fans) to carry all of the risk with reviving a dead show is poor taste - that responsibility is what the studio is for. Throw in the fact that the people (unlike the studio) won't own a stake in the IP in any way means that the studio has effectively made the fans buy the property for them, and won't give them a single cut of future earnings from project. Ergo, free money ion every sense of the word.

As a scam, it's fantastic in its simplicity. You'd better believe that before someone invests in a film, they want a level of control, an oversight of progress (genuine oversight, not youtube updates), a say in marketing strategy and final cuts, and overview of how much everyone in the project is earning, with the power to object to renumeration policies that they disagree with. The Kickstarter investors will get none of that, but still bear the financial responsibility with none of the reward (although they might get a tshirt, and get to meet an actor if they invest above the average!). It is sickening.

 

[DragonStorm247]

Am I the only one here who is more concerned about the impact this will have on those smaller developers who don't have the option of studio funding, than about big companies being able to increase their profits? We're already starting to see it now, with big names largely overshadowing unknowns.

 

[Entitled]

Am I the only one here who is more concerned about the impact this will have on those smaller developers who don't have the option of studio funding, than about big companies being able to increase their profits? We're already starting to see it now, with big names largely overshadowing unknowns.

Again, this is not actually true. we have data [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/blockbuster-effects] showing that rather than other projects getting overshadowed, a blockbuster project coming to Kickstarter leads new backers to Kickstarter, and results in all projects getting more funded, including the small ones, and the ones in unrelated categories.

 

[Atmos Duality]

At least I'll get a couple good titles out of crowd-sourcing before big media shits over all of that too.
Even right now I can see how easy and inviting it would be to scam people on crowd sourcing via bait-and-switch and pawns.

Granted, this could be worked around if most people just did a modicum of research before committing finances, and you would hope that people so invested in seeing such properties and works would be more discerning than the usual stupid "lowest common denominator" sheeple that media giants love to exploit.

Or maybe I'm giving too much credit to pathos-dominated fandom.

 

[Entitled]

Granted, this could be worked around if most people just did a modicum of research before committing finances, and you would hope that people so invested in seeing such properties and works would be more discerning than the usual stupid "lowest common denominator" sheeple that media giants love to exploit.

Or maybe I'm giving too much credit to pathos-dominated fandom.

We already have a few examples of backers rejecting projects that appeared to do everything by the book.

The Wildman kickstarter from GPG because it appeared to be built on a risky financial situation, and the "Old-School RPG" that was way too obviously pandering to the hardcore pathos.

These are already examples of fandom cynicism and research and expectations of at least some originality appearing where the "lowest common denominator" couldn't even name the creator, let alone care about it's financial or moral capabilities.

Or just look at how many games are successfully advertising themselves as "No DRM, No DLC", which is something that the mass market wouldn't ever care about.

I think, the main problem is, that we just lost our sense of how SMALL our online communities are compared to the mass market, so every time something that we hate happens, there is an outry of how *WE* as gamers are sheeple for never being able to boycott anything, and for buying the crap that we are preaching against.

And sure, products pandering to a hardcore fandom also has it's negative side effects, as anyone into the anime otakudom can tell, but it's also very different from mainstream pandering in many ways, and imo overall more appropriate for nerd type audiences.

 

[Jenx]

A few years ago, we called crowdfunding a "revolution." Revolutions aren't supposed to look exactly like what came before.

"Phah!What planet are you from?"
-The Entirety of Human History

But seriously though, I don't think any of this is that big of a deal. Yes, people who have money are going to try and make more money. They will likely succeed. As long as you get the stuff you want (a tv show, a game or whatever) out of it, I don't see the harm. Not like you can just tell them to stop being rich and they'll shrug and agree with you.

 

[MovieBob]

For just this once ( and probably first time ever ), I'm almost fully agreeing with Bob.
But you know.. it took you a while to figure it out..
I have been claiming this exact problem with the few multi-million game kickstarters that we've been seing lately.

Are people really funding an interesting game idea that can't get funding in any other way or are they funding Tim Schaefer's fame assurance? Obsidian needs no help to make more games, it is still a rather successful developer, but they used it for project eternity. Wasteland and Planescape torment, both hold a pretty sturdy seat along cult rpg classics, and it seems with just mentioning their name, millions of dollars get flung towards them.
I'm glad they are getting made, great. But it also raises the question of actual independent endeavours totally eclipsed by these monolithic almost corporate productions, and yeah, I've seen the numbers.

I understand that it still works positively for the smaller teams, and that this behemoths promote awareness towards the possibility of donating money to kickstarter campaigns in the general audience. But I doubt it having a lasting effect, since it's becoming evident that a lot of the people just go in to donate to the blockbuster kickstarters (shouldn't that be an oximoron?). Well look into the "most funded" category. Only a few of the picked are actually independent teams, most are sequels. Is this the idea? or should we be rebranding this to FameHypeStarter?

Maybe it really happens that these projects couldn't get funded in any other way, but most of the time, it tends to spring the question, couldn't they, or they just didn't want to respond to a producer, because they just want it their own way... Do they really NEED to be there??

I understand that people are more willing to trust on a proven reliable products and teams that they already love, but isn't getting rid of that dynamic the whole purpose of kickstarter?

Its so strange though, we all criticise Hollywood, and the general entertainment industry's lack of creativity, reliance on by-the-numbers repetition.. but when given the choice.. we want more of the same -"but it's not the same same, it's a different same!!"- hmm I suppose nothing can be done about it.. masses are masses, and when they speak... we can't ignore it.. even when they say really dumb things.

 

[Jhereg42]

There are some small differences here. We are not talking about Developers being a problem. The Director of VM is the Developer in this case. In the case of say, Obsidian, it was about cutting the PUBLISHER out of the loop. Take Alpha Protocol. Obsidian developed it from the ground up (minus the basis of the engine they licensed from Bioware). However, to publish it they had to go to Sega, and part of that deal was that Sega controls the IP. Now, if they wanted to go back and try and make a 2nd one, they would need Sega's permission. The kick starters by developers are so that they can retain their rights and creative vision and go with Investors that believe in that vision.

Avelone is on record as saying a "a publisher" (read Sega again) approached him about making an original IP, having it run through Kickstarter, and then giving it to them to publish. His response to the publisher was in essence, "Wait, you want me to work up all this stuff for an original IP, use my name to get people to pay for it, then sign it over to you for nothing?" The publisher looked confused for a moment, and the seed for PE was planted when Avelone realized he could do it for himself and Obsidian and cut Sega out of the whole mess.

The wet cement in this Veronica Mars project is that the *Publisher* owns the rights, and told the *developer* to go get some money on Kickstarter to mitigate their risks. This is a little scary, because knowing they can take advantage of fans is the first step on a very dark road. "We cannot afford to bring Will Weaton back to Big Ban Theory unless we get a 3M kickstarter for the season. He's just *too expensive*. Now excuse me while I go roll in money." That kind of thing.

In my mind, it's not about "who" or "what" is being kick started. It's about giving the people behind it full control of the project without "outside" money having an influence on the creative direction. I fear it's going to become about manipulating us.

 

[Lieju]

Am I the only one here who is more concerned about the impact this will have on those smaller developers who don't have the option of studio funding, than about big companies being able to increase their profits? We're already starting to see it now, with big names largely overshadowing unknowns.

Again, this is not actually true. we have data [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/blockbuster-effects] showing that rather than other projects getting overshadowed, a blockbuster project coming to Kickstarter leads new backers to Kickstarter, and results in all projects getting more funded, including the small ones, and the ones in unrelated categories.

For now. But there is no unlimited source of potential backers, so I don't think a situation where big projects bring in new people who will spend money on unrelated KS projects can last.

 

[Entitled]

Again, this is not actually true. we have data [http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/blockbuster-effects] showing that rather than other projects getting overshadowed, a blockbuster project coming to Kickstarter leads new backers to Kickstarter, and results in all projects getting more funded, including the small ones, and the ones in unrelated categories.

For now. But there is no unlimited source of potential backers, so I don't think a situation where big projects bring in new people who will spend money on unrelated KS projects can last.

If big projects will stop bringing in new backers, then obviously they will stop growing as the site's popularity hits a plateau. therefore there would still be no reason to worry about them syphoning away more and more people from other projects.

You are missing the bigger picture of what that statistic means: So far, we only had bigger and bigger projects to begin with, solely because they brought in newer and newer fans.

The idea that in the future, the backers will start ignoring smaller projects, requires not one, but two hypothetical changes:
First, that Kickstarter runs out of new backers. And THEN, that the old Kickstaretr users change their backing habits, and let big projects start to syphon away people from small ones, which we know they didn't do until now.

Who knows, it MIGHT happen, but we have zero evidence, or even tangible suspicion why it should be likely.
The reasons why people are afraid of this possibility, are the misinterpreted scales off success, with people like DragonStorm247 believing that they already see the signs of small projects shrinking, while really it's just an optical illusion, thanks to small projects getting less relative attention (but numerically more money).

It's like when the police arrests someone for robbery, based on fingerprint matches. Then they learn that the original match was an error. Then they say "Anyways, he might still be guilty of SOMETHING". Yeah, he might, but there is absolutely nothing indicating it, and the only reason we are considering it was a dumb misunderstanding to begin with.

 

[MB202]

I seriously hope Gravity Falls gets another season...

Also, this article reminds me of a recent Jimquisition episode, where he talks about how Game Companies do whatever they can to take your money before actually earning it, say that the phrase "Shut up and take my money!" needs to be replaced by "Shut up and EARN my money!".