Kickstarter/crowdfunding are just modern forms of patronage. And, yes, Ancient Rome embraced patronage.
lol. I just had to laugh at the constant ignorance of history on this forum.
it is quite unbelievable
Lol, what I find funny is how you agree about the "constant ignorance" of people. Then someone gives you a dictionary definition of patronage, which you vehemently deny has any relation to crowdfunding, yet the basis for your argument is that it patronage has nothing to do with a crowd and patronage wasn't always monetary. I'm not going to go ahead and say you're wrong, but I'd be more inclined to trust Forbes over someone on a forum.
Meh, actually, never mind, I can't resist. You're wrong!
"Patronage is the support, encouragement, privilege, or financial aid that an organization or individual bestows to another."
You are welcome.
Sounds an aweful lot like KS/Indiegogo
It has nothing to do with crowdfunding. Why are you two so determined to ignore facts?
Patronage has nothing to do with crowdfunding. It is an agreement between two people of different social status (monetary, religious or governmental) and it has nothing to do with a crowd, nor is the agreement always financial.
Any way...
noun
1.
the financial support or business provided to a store, hotel, or the like,by customers, clients, or paying guests.
late 14c., "right of presenting a qualified person to a church benefice," fromOld French patronage (14c.) from patron (see patron ). Secular sense of"action of giving influential support" is from 1550s. General sense of "powerto give jobs or favors" is from 1769; meaning "regular business ofcustomers" is 1804.
-----
patronage
noun pa·tron·age \ˈpa-trə-nij, ˈpā-\
: money and support that is given to an artist, organization, etc.
: support that is given to a business, library, etc., by buying its goods or using its services
: the power to give jobs or provide other help to people as a reward for their support
: business or activity provided by patrons <the new branch library is expected to have a heavypatronage>
5
a : the power to make appointments to government jobs especially for political advantageb : the distribution of jobs on the basis of patronagec : jobs distributed by patronage
If they were based in the US you could always sic the IRS on them. Does the UK have any kind of agency like that? Won't get your money back, but its a good bet the IRS could put them in prison for tax evasion if they are not Tax lawyers. Kickstarter taxes are a grey area and the IRS loves grey areas.
Why is this surprising to anyone is still something I don't get
it's a donation without any guarantees, just blind hope.
people don't understand donations?
I still donate to kickstart projects, but I am 100% aware that it's just me giving money away, zero guarantee that it will result in anything.
I do my best to research and donaste to reputable developers but again it's still just blind hope.
They donate and then complain......I don't get people....thinking they will for sure get what they DONATED for.....So no one got ripped off, they donated....
Its a donation. Its certainly not a purchase or an investment.
Nope. Not a donation either...it's patronage. Donations (in the U.S) are tax deductible, come with legal protections and are regulated actively by the government.
So crowd sourcing would be in the same category as someone who goes on one of those 'sugar daddy / sugar baby' websites.
Please they know by now that most things through KS are never finished, unless its from a company that has done what ever they are doing before, so to many gamers think they can make a game and then try to make a MMO./. I been a dev for over a decade and I still would never make a MMO with a company until our company proved itself with other smaller released games... Common sense...
I don't really understand the excuses people are using. It's not a donation, donations are given in good faith, to non-profit charitable causes. It's not patronage either.
No one expects to get any return on a donation, I don't expect anything in return when I give to a good cause. But there is an expectation that these people are getting something in return, they are buying these drones, or are told they are.
You can't claim your site is simply about donations, when you are promising a trade. "Pledge X money and you receive Y". That's not a donation, that's a trade. You're setting up a sale.
I agree that giving money to Kickstarter is gullible, but that doesn't make what Kickstarter does justifiable.
Kickstarter is setting up shop with these projects, and not meeting their end of the bargain, and are trying to get around it with semantics and taking advantage of the fact, that the people on the losing end are individuals, who are unlikely to resort to legal action. You can't keep hiding under clauses when you're taking in millions in trade.
I don't really understand the excuses people are using. It's not a donation, donations are given in good faith, to non-profit charitable causes. It's not patronage either.
No one expects to get any return on a donation, I don't expect anything in return when I give to a good cause. But there is an expectation that these people are getting something in return, they are buying these drones, or are told they are.
You can't claim your site is simply about donations, when you are promising a trade. "Pledge X money and you receive Y". That's not a donation, that's a trade. You're setting up a sale.
I agree that giving money to Kickstarter is gullible, but that doesn't make what Kickstarter does justifiable.
Is there an expectation that they will be getting something in return? Is this really the case? I certainly do see many people who DO expect that whatever they back will be produced. However, are they ignorant to the process? The risk? What more could be done to educate people of this risk? I think that crowdfunding has received it's fair share of negative press to this point. At what point does the responsibility fall to the consumer? I mean Kickstarter has been around for over 5 years now.
I think that you're right and wrong at the same time. There is, obviously, many who are gullible when it comes to Kickstarter. However, there are others who are quite well-informed on the subject and choose to put their money at risk in hopes of seeing a product materialize. At this point I don't believe that the onus is on Kickstarter to inform people, I think that the onus is on the consumer to be more educated. So, yes, people complaining about it have every right to complain about it, but if that wasn't a known risk, then the issue is with their own education than with the model itself.
I don't really understand the excuses people are using. It's not a donation, donations are given in good faith, to non-profit charitable causes. It's not patronage either.
No one expects to get any return on a donation, I don't expect anything in return when I give to a good cause. But there is an expectation that these people are getting something in return, they are buying these drones, or are told they are.
You can't claim your site is simply about donations, when you are promising a trade. "Pledge X money and you receive Y". That's not a donation, that's a trade. You're setting up a sale.
I agree that giving money to Kickstarter is gullible, but that doesn't make what Kickstarter does justifiable.
Is there an expectation that they will be getting something in return? Is this really the case? I certainly do see many people who DO expect that whatever they back will be produced. However, are they ignorant to the process? The risk? What more could be done to educate people of this risk? I think that crowdfunding has received it's fair share of negative press to this point. At what point does the responsibility fall to the consumer? I mean Kickstarter has been around for over 5 years now.
I think that you're right and wrong at the same time. There is, obviously, many who are gullible when it comes to Kickstarter. However, there are others who are quite well-informed on the subject and choose to put their money at risk in hopes of seeing a product materialize. At this point I don't believe that the onus is on Kickstarter to inform people, I think that the onus is on the consumer to be more educated. So, yes, people complaining about it have every right to complain about it, but if that wasn't a known risk, then the issue is with their own education than with the model itself.
The problem as I see it is that they are influenced through the marketing and presentation to think that they are indeed making a purchase. The confusion about what exactly it is that they're getting into is created deliberately to maximize crowdfunding income.
And it's not like everyone is interested in the same type of KS project. So there will always be a supply of potential new-to-KS customers that are attracted to some niche product.
It's not like many (any?) KS campaigns emphasize the risk of getting nothing and having no recourse when they're asking for money.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I have a kickstarter project idea. Its to start a kickstarter, that is more like an investment. Thats how projects used to work, not by donations
say kickstarter is 1 million as its goal, if we reach that goal 10% ownership goes back to the investors (each individual % would be based on your contribution % of that goal) seems like a relatively easy solution
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I don't really understand the excuses people are using. It's not a donation, donations are given in good faith, to non-profit charitable causes. It's not patronage either.
No one expects to get any return on a donation, I don't expect anything in return when I give to a good cause. But there is an expectation that these people are getting something in return, they are buying these drones, or are told they are.
You can't claim your site is simply about donations, when you are promising a trade. "Pledge X money and you receive Y". That's not a donation, that's a trade. You're setting up a sale.
I agree that giving money to Kickstarter is gullible, but that doesn't make what Kickstarter does justifiable.
Is there an expectation that they will be getting something in return? Is this really the case? I certainly do see many people who DO expect that whatever they back will be produced. However, are they ignorant to the process? The risk? What more could be done to educate people of this risk? I think that crowdfunding has received it's fair share of negative press to this point. At what point does the responsibility fall to the consumer? I mean Kickstarter has been around for over 5 years now.
I think that you're right and wrong at the same time. There is, obviously, many who are gullible when it comes to Kickstarter. However, there are others who are quite well-informed on the subject and choose to put their money at risk in hopes of seeing a product materialize. At this point I don't believe that the onus is on Kickstarter to inform people, I think that the onus is on the consumer to be more educated. So, yes, people complaining about it have every right to complain about it, but if that wasn't a known risk, then the issue is with their own education than with the model itself.
The problem as I see it is that they are influenced through the marketing and presentation to think that they are indeed making a purchase. The confusion about what exactly it is that they're getting into is created deliberately to maximize crowdfunding income.
And it's not like everyone is interested in the same type of KS project. So there will always be a supply of potential new-to-KS customers that are attracted to some niche product.
It's not like many (any?) KS campaigns emphasize the risk of getting nothing and having no recourse when they're asking for money.
Problem is in actual law ignorance is no ground to argue from... if they don't understand, that's on them for not taking the time to understand.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Its a donation. Its certainly not a purchase or an investment.
Nope. Not a donation either...it's patronage. Donations (in the U.S) are tax deductible, come with legal protections and are regulated actively by the government.
So crowd sourcing would be in the same category as someone who goes on one of those 'sugar daddy / sugar baby' websites.
Except that in the US at least, some State courts are finding that "in practice", some crowdfunding efforts are no different than doing a pre-order for a product. And in such a case, consumer rights attach.
If it looks like a pre-order, and functions like a pre-order (i.e. like ordering and paying for a car that has not been manufactured yet, which is a fairly common example), then it is a pre-order, no matter what someone tries to call it.
So, according to the courts, it is not a donation, and it is not "patronage". (And frankly, theirs is the only opinion that matters.)
It is a "pre-order", and someone that pays for a pre-order is a customer.
It's autonomous. It's intelligent. It swarms. It takes selfies??
ZANO is an ultra-portable, personal aerial photography and HD video capture platform, Small enough to fit in the palm of your hand and intelligent enough to fly all by itself! ZANO connects directly to your smart device (iOS or Android) via onboard WiFi and enables you to instantly begin capturing and sharing moments like never before.
Pledge £139 or more
500 backers All gone!
SUPER EARLY BIRD FIRST EDITION BLACK ZANO. You will receive 1 x First Edition Black ZANO. 1 x Charging Cable. You will also receive FREE capability software updates for 12 months after public launch.
RRP £169.95
Estimated delivery:Jun 2015
Ships to:Anywhere in the world
The way its worded speaks of an actual product, it mentions that your pledge will give you a product, it gives an estimated delivery date and that its shipped across the world. They even updated their page to mention pre-orders.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
I don't really understand the excuses people are using. It's not a donation, donations are given in good faith, to non-profit charitable causes. It's not patronage either.
No one expects to get any return on a donation, I don't expect anything in return when I give to a good cause. But there is an expectation that these people are getting something in return, they are buying these drones, or are told they are.
You can't claim your site is simply about donations, when you are promising a trade. "Pledge X money and you receive Y". That's not a donation, that's a trade. You're setting up a sale.
I agree that giving money to Kickstarter is gullible, but that doesn't make what Kickstarter does justifiable.
Is there an expectation that they will be getting something in return? Is this really the case? I certainly do see many people who DO expect that whatever they back will be produced. However, are they ignorant to the process? The risk? What more could be done to educate people of this risk? I think that crowdfunding has received it's fair share of negative press to this point. At what point does the responsibility fall to the consumer? I mean Kickstarter has been around for over 5 years now.
I think that you're right and wrong at the same time. There is, obviously, many who are gullible when it comes to Kickstarter. However, there are others who are quite well-informed on the subject and choose to put their money at risk in hopes of seeing a product materialize. At this point I don't believe that the onus is on Kickstarter to inform people, I think that the onus is on the consumer to be more educated. So, yes, people complaining about it have every right to complain about it, but if that wasn't a known risk, then the issue is with their own education than with the model itself.
The problem as I see it is that they are influenced through the marketing and presentation to think that they are indeed making a purchase. The confusion about what exactly it is that they're getting into is created deliberately to maximize crowdfunding income.
And it's not like everyone is interested in the same type of KS project. So there will always be a supply of potential new-to-KS customers that are attracted to some niche product.
It's not like many (any?) KS campaigns emphasize the risk of getting nothing and having no recourse when they're asking for money.
Problem is in actual law ignorance is no ground to argue from... if they don't understand, that's on them for not taking the time to understand.
Yeah it's not like I haven't heard victims of scams getting blamed before lol.... "they should have known better" sort of lets the con man off the hook don't you think?
I know that consumer protection laws and regulations are not too popular with some posters around here but they're there for a reason. That being that society in general doesn't buy the "should have known better" argument as the end of the matter.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The way its worded speaks of an actual product, it mentions that your pledge will give you a product, it gives an estimated delivery date and that its shipped across the world. They even updated their page to mention pre-orders.
Of course it does. They all do because that's what they want you to believe you're doing. "It was just a donation" only comes out when they fail as the lamest of all possible excuses.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I have a kickstarter project idea. Its to start a kickstarter, that is more like an investment. Thats how projects used to work, not by donations
say kickstarter is 1 million as its goal, if we reach that goal 10% ownership goes back to the investors (each individual % would be based on your contribution % of that goal) seems like a relatively easy solution
There are "honest to goodness" investment crowdfunded efforts, but those are a whole different animal entirely.
For the most part, they are restricted to "qualified investors", which is someone who, among other things, has a net worth of more than $2 mil.
Such crowdfunded efforts are already heavily scrutinized by the SEC, in the US at least, and are nothing like the crap you see coming across KS or indigogo. As a result of so much more money being in play, the people running those crowdfunded projects and the people advertising them are explicitly "on the hook" for everything that is said and done with the money, and, can be sued (because the investors, and they are actual investors get equity in the project they are funding). Criminal liability also attaches more easily in such cases and has real teeth (securities fraud: BAD).
KS and Indigogo do NOT run such projects and have said they will not in the future (in so many words) because they do not want to be financially responsible for the easily provable frauds that will occur.
But they are perfectly fine taking part in these "reward" crowding projects, and taking their 8% off the top, for projects where the fraud and mismanagement are NOT as easy to prove. Nevermind the customer who gets screwed.
But, the courts are finally catching up to this whole racket, and that is a good thing, imo.
I don't really understand the excuses people are using. It's not a donation, donations are given in good faith, to non-profit charitable causes. It's not patronage either.
No one expects to get any return on a donation, I don't expect anything in return when I give to a good cause. But there is an expectation that these people are getting something in return, they are buying these drones, or are told they are.
You can't claim your site is simply about donations, when you are promising a trade. "Pledge X money and you receive Y". That's not a donation, that's a trade. You're setting up a sale.
I agree that giving money to Kickstarter is gullible, but that doesn't make what Kickstarter does justifiable.
Is there an expectation that they will be getting something in return? Is this really the case? I certainly do see many people who DO expect that whatever they back will be produced. However, are they ignorant to the process? The risk? What more could be done to educate people of this risk? I think that crowdfunding has received it's fair share of negative press to this point. At what point does the responsibility fall to the consumer? I mean Kickstarter has been around for over 5 years now.
I think that you're right and wrong at the same time. There is, obviously, many who are gullible when it comes to Kickstarter. However, there are others who are quite well-informed on the subject and choose to put their money at risk in hopes of seeing a product materialize. At this point I don't believe that the onus is on Kickstarter to inform people, I think that the onus is on the consumer to be more educated. So, yes, people complaining about it have every right to complain about it, but if that wasn't a known risk, then the issue is with their own education than with the model itself.
The problem as I see it is that they are influenced through the marketing and presentation to think that they are indeed making a purchase. The confusion about what exactly it is that they're getting into is created deliberately to maximize crowdfunding income.
And it's not like everyone is interested in the same type of KS project. So there will always be a supply of potential new-to-KS customers that are attracted to some niche product.
It's not like many (any?) KS campaigns emphasize the risk of getting nothing and having no recourse when they're asking for money.
Problem is in actual law ignorance is no ground to argue from... if they don't understand, that's on them for not taking the time to understand.
Yeah it's not like I haven't heard victims of scams getting blamed before lol.... "they should have known better" sort of lets the con man off the hook don't you think?
I know that consumer protection laws and regulations are not too popular with some posters around here but they're there for a reason. That being that society in general doesn't buy the "should have known better" argument as the end of the matter.
I didn't blame people for being victims of scams, scams have nothing to do with what I said really, I'm just pointing out how the law views the subject of ignorance.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I didn't blame people for being victims of scams, scams have nothing to do with what I said really, I'm just pointing out how the law views the subject of ignorance.
Is it a scam if the project leader intentionally lied on his KS page?
I don't really understand the excuses people are using. It's not a donation, donations are given in good faith, to non-profit charitable causes. It's not patronage either.
No one expects to get any return on a donation, I don't expect anything in return when I give to a good cause. But there is an expectation that these people are getting something in return, they are buying these drones, or are told they are.
You can't claim your site is simply about donations, when you are promising a trade. "Pledge X money and you receive Y". That's not a donation, that's a trade. You're setting up a sale.
I agree that giving money to Kickstarter is gullible, but that doesn't make what Kickstarter does justifiable.
Is there an expectation that they will be getting something in return? Is this really the case? I certainly do see many people who DO expect that whatever they back will be produced. However, are they ignorant to the process? The risk? What more could be done to educate people of this risk? I think that crowdfunding has received it's fair share of negative press to this point. At what point does the responsibility fall to the consumer? I mean Kickstarter has been around for over 5 years now.
I think that you're right and wrong at the same time. There is, obviously, many who are gullible when it comes to Kickstarter. However, there are others who are quite well-informed on the subject and choose to put their money at risk in hopes of seeing a product materialize. At this point I don't believe that the onus is on Kickstarter to inform people, I think that the onus is on the consumer to be more educated. So, yes, people complaining about it have every right to complain about it, but if that wasn't a known risk, then the issue is with their own education than with the model itself.
The problem as I see it is that they are influenced through the marketing and presentation to think that they are indeed making a purchase. The confusion about what exactly it is that they're getting into is created deliberately to maximize crowdfunding income.
And it's not like everyone is interested in the same type of KS project. So there will always be a supply of potential new-to-KS customers that are attracted to some niche product.
It's not like many (any?) KS campaigns emphasize the risk of getting nothing and having no recourse when they're asking for money.
Problem is in actual law ignorance is no ground to argue from... if they don't understand, that's on them for not taking the time to understand.
Yeah it's not like I haven't heard victims of scams getting blamed before lol.... "they should have known better" sort of lets the con man off the hook don't you think?
I know that consumer protection laws and regulations are not too popular with some posters around here but they're there for a reason. That being that society in general doesn't buy the "should have known better" argument as the end of the matter.
I didn't blame people for being victims of scams, scams have nothing to do with what I said really, I'm just pointing out how the law views the subject of ignorance.
But I wasn't talking about legal recourse was I? My post was about how the confusion about what it is that you're actually doing is deliberately created because, obviously, being up front and transparent about the risk is not something they want to do.
You're the one that brought up the ignorance of the law bit
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I have a kickstarter project idea. Its to start a kickstarter, that is more like an investment. Thats how projects used to work, not by donations
say kickstarter is 1 million as its goal, if we reach that goal 10% ownership goes back to the investors (each individual % would be based on your contribution % of that goal) seems like a relatively easy solution
I like the idea, but not entirely. I would love to see this as an option at later stages, and I might even consider investing. However, you're talking about a product investment, not a company investment. KS isn't funding companies, it's funding ideas. Also, I'm not sure what the legalities would be surrounding that. Also, let's say the "Kickstarter" KS project is 1 million. If I put in my $20 "investment", I wind up with 0.0002% of it. So, the product would need to gross $1 million for me to get two dollars return.
I think that if this were to be a "thing" it might be limited to higher backer tiers. Like if you throw in $50,000 then they'll give you a percentage of that 10% of the company. Otherwise, literally, the return you earned on their $1,000,000 is profit would actually be eaten up by the cost of the process to print you a check.
It's interesting, though. Not sure how it could be done, but it's interesting.
Comments
Buyer/backer beware. Think of kickstarters as a charity. If you donate to them don't expect anything in return.
Again, if people want to flush their hard earn money down the toilet, it is their prerogative.
It is mine to laugh at it. This is what buying hope is like.
Lol, what I find funny is how you agree about the "constant ignorance" of people. Then someone gives you a dictionary definition of patronage, which you vehemently deny has any relation to crowdfunding, yet the basis for your argument is that it patronage has nothing to do with a crowd and patronage wasn't always monetary. I'm not going to go ahead and say you're wrong, but I'd be more inclined to trust Forbes over someone on a forum.
Meh, actually, never mind, I can't resist. You're wrong!
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Any way...
-----
patronage
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Cite This Source
late 14c., "right of presenting a qualified person to a church benefice," fromOld French patronage (14c.) from patron (see patron ). Secular sense of"action of giving influential support" is from 1550s. General sense of "powerto give jobs or favors" is from 1769; meaning "regular business ofcustomers" is 1804.
-----
patronage
: money and support that is given to an artist, organization, etc.
: support that is given to a business, library, etc., by buying its goods or using its services
: the power to give jobs or provide other help to people as a reward for their support
Full Definition of PATRONAGE
This have been a good conversation
Please they know by now that most things through KS are never finished, unless its from a company that has done what ever they are doing before, so to many gamers think they can make a game and then try to make a MMO./. I been a dev for over a decade and I still would never make a MMO with a company until our company proved itself with other smaller released games... Common sense...
No one expects to get any return on a donation, I don't expect anything in return when I give to a good cause. But there is an expectation that these people are getting something in return, they are buying these drones, or are told they are.
You can't claim your site is simply about donations, when you are promising a trade. "Pledge X money and you receive Y". That's not a donation, that's a trade. You're setting up a sale.
I agree that giving money to Kickstarter is gullible, but that doesn't make what Kickstarter does justifiable.
Kickstarter is setting up shop with these projects, and not meeting their end of the bargain, and are trying to get around it with semantics and taking advantage of the fact, that the people on the losing end are individuals, who are unlikely to resort to legal action. You can't keep hiding under clauses when you're taking in millions in trade.
Is there an expectation that they will be getting something in return? Is this really the case? I certainly do see many people who DO expect that whatever they back will be produced. However, are they ignorant to the process? The risk? What more could be done to educate people of this risk? I think that crowdfunding has received it's fair share of negative press to this point. At what point does the responsibility fall to the consumer? I mean Kickstarter has been around for over 5 years now.
I think that you're right and wrong at the same time. There is, obviously, many who are gullible when it comes to Kickstarter. However, there are others who are quite well-informed on the subject and choose to put their money at risk in hopes of seeing a product materialize. At this point I don't believe that the onus is on Kickstarter to inform people, I think that the onus is on the consumer to be more educated. So, yes, people complaining about it have every right to complain about it, but if that wasn't a known risk, then the issue is with their own education than with the model itself.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
And it's not like everyone is interested in the same type of KS project. So there will always be a supply of potential new-to-KS customers that are attracted to some niche product.
It's not like many (any?) KS campaigns emphasize the risk of getting nothing and having no recourse when they're asking for money.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
say kickstarter is 1 million as its goal, if we reach that goal 10% ownership goes back to the investors (each individual % would be based on your contribution % of that goal) seems like a relatively easy solution
Does not look to bad btw
People are stupid that is why they don't get it. Oh, sometimes they just want the negative attention posting in forums about it.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Are you a lawyer offering legal advice? Or you are a forum lawyer?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If it looks like a pre-order, and functions like a pre-order (i.e. like ordering and paying for a car that has not been manufactured yet, which is a fairly common example), then it is a pre-order, no matter what someone tries to call it.
So, according to the courts, it is not a donation, and it is not "patronage". (And frankly, theirs is the only opinion that matters.)
It is a "pre-order", and someone that pays for a pre-order is a customer.
It's autonomous. It's intelligent. It swarms. It takes selfies??
ZANO is an ultra-portable, personal aerial photography and HD video capture platform, Small enough to fit in the palm of your hand and intelligent enough to fly all by itself! ZANO connects directly to your smart device (iOS or Android) via onboard WiFi and enables you to instantly begin capturing and sharing moments like never before.
Pledge £139 or more
500 backers All gone!
SUPER EARLY BIRD FIRST EDITION BLACK ZANO. You will receive 1 x First Edition Black ZANO. 1 x Charging Cable. You will also receive FREE capability software updates for 12 months after public launch.
RRP £169.95
The way its worded speaks of an actual product, it mentions that your pledge will give you a product, it gives an estimated delivery date and that its shipped across the world. They even updated their page to mention pre-orders.
I know that consumer protection laws and regulations are not too popular with some posters around here but they're there for a reason. That being that society in general doesn't buy the "should have known better" argument as the end of the matter.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
For the most part, they are restricted to "qualified investors", which is someone who, among other things, has a net worth of more than $2 mil.
Such crowdfunded efforts are already heavily scrutinized by the SEC, in the US at least, and are nothing like the crap you see coming across KS or indigogo. As a result of so much more money being in play, the people running those crowdfunded projects and the people advertising them are explicitly "on the hook" for everything that is said and done with the money, and, can be sued (because the investors, and they are actual investors get equity in the project they are funding). Criminal liability also attaches more easily in such cases and has real teeth (securities fraud: BAD).
KS and Indigogo do NOT run such projects and have said they will not in the future (in so many words) because they do not want to be financially responsible for the easily provable frauds that will occur.
But they are perfectly fine taking part in these "reward" crowding projects, and taking their 8% off the top, for projects where the fraud and mismanagement are NOT as easy to prove. Nevermind the customer who gets screwed.
But, the courts are finally catching up to this whole racket, and that is a good thing, imo.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You're the one that brought up the ignorance of the law bit
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I like the idea, but not entirely. I would love to see this as an option at later stages, and I might even consider investing. However, you're talking about a product investment, not a company investment. KS isn't funding companies, it's funding ideas. Also, I'm not sure what the legalities would be surrounding that. Also, let's say the "Kickstarter" KS project is 1 million. If I put in my $20 "investment", I wind up with 0.0002% of it. So, the product would need to gross $1 million for me to get two dollars return.
I think that if this were to be a "thing" it might be limited to higher backer tiers. Like if you throw in $50,000 then they'll give you a percentage of that 10% of the company. Otherwise, literally, the return you earned on their $1,000,000 is profit would actually be eaten up by the cost of the process to print you a check.
It's interesting, though. Not sure how it could be done, but it's interesting.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------