Well, it seems kickstarter finally took the plunge and is now onto the next level of big business.
It was teetering on the edge for a while after the multi-million dollar companies came, but finally tipped over into multi-billion dollar companies.
I’m just curious what people think of this? I mean, there are arguments on both sides… “big campaigns bring more people to kickstarter!”, to “big campaigns overshadow everyone else”.
Yeah… Little ones are screwed.
We all had the feeling it would happen, but money runs the world
Don’t have a problem with this, seems like the natural progression and is still giving the people the choice as opposed to having no choice with the big companies so often deciding its not worth the risk. Never watched VM, but I know it was pretty popular, wish kickstarter had been around when Firefly had got canned as the browncoats could easily have raised enough to make a full series possible as opposed to a one off film.
The only that puzzles me is that $2 million is a tiny amount for a feature film, I really don’t understand how they hoped to make it with such a small amount. I could only assume that WB would be stumping up additional cash if they reached their goal, but nothing on the kickstarter mentions anything like that. I guess maybe since they will be dealing with worldwide distribution they will fund that and the marketing campaign, which can greatly help in reduction the actual total budget a normal movie requires. It would also explain why there is no mention of it on the kickstarter, you are literally pledging to get the movie made, nothing more.
However having said that I can see kickstarter (or creators using it) needing to change in the future, especially if VM returns a good profit for WB,. Whilst people will be happy to pledge to get something made that wouldn’t have, I don’t think the good will would last too long unless the profits are re-invested back into the project.
Overall I really don’t see any problem with this. As far as i’m aware kickstarter was never designed for the small people, thats just where it started. Its overall aim is to get projects funded that normally wouldn’t through virtue of ‘crowd sourcing’, be it some small indie concept or re-vitalising some popular show that was canned. Its up to creators to engage with people to get pledges, but its always been the case that the big names get more publicity and more backers as they are already a known entity, often with a large fan base.
As for a big company like WB being ‘semi’ involved, I still don’t have a problem. Currently 50k people have pledged, that would be a pretty poor showing for a national or international release of a film, doubtful even on a low budget that it would make enough profit to be woth WB time. This to me is one of the key points, a film based on normal ticket sales may simply never be profitable, but give the fans the option to pay over the odds to generate the budget needed to film it and you can make a project happen. Alternatively the reverse is also true, if WB felt the fanbase was too small to turn a profit at the cinema, but in reality several hundred thousand end up pledging small amounts you get the same result - the film is made.
This all ties into the ‘value’ of a product and how digital is turning typical sales methodology on its head. In a physical product world you end up trying to find a balanced to price it, a cost that is acceptable to the market. Problem is this is a fixed cost everywhere, ignoring the fact that in reality fans are often willing to invest more, whilst at the other end of the scale you have pirates who want to give nothing. So why not utilise a method that empowers people to pay what they want (with some common-sense limits). If they get what they want out of it then it clearly is worth the value they paid in.
I think little ones got screwed a long time ago 
Or, it will just be a way to hype a project and defer some of the costs before it starts A free 2 million dollars before making somethng? Spinning it as “this won’t get made if you don’t give us money!”.
Basically, holding projects hostage until the public pays up.
It could easily be used for every new game or movie or anything. Nickelodeon could have brought the latest teen age mutant ninja turtles cartoon to kickstarter with a cool sleek pitch of “we are reviving the old turtles! You want to see them back? Back us! We need your support or…this won’t happen!! ~sad face~”.
Follow it up with a pretty meager PR advertising blitz across major news channels for a measly 20-30k, get a ton of PR (which easily pays for itself as everyone opens their wallets). Then you get to make the show cheaper, get great advertising, and get the public to feel they are invested in the new show (meaning they follow it more and wait for it to be released biting their nails).
Any project could get free millions from the public and tons of hype.
But, what does this mean for the little guy? Well… we saw what happened as kickstarter grew. Suddenly the idea of kickstarter became equal to advertising spam on forums (try posting your campaign and you get banned). This starts to shut out smaller 1 or 2 man teams who don’t have advertising budgets for a top down approach (some game kickstarters lately have taken out tons of banner adds and other traditional marketing along with hiring PR companies to push large campaigns through all the media).
Basically, it becomes a case of “you need money to make money”. Raising the bar of who can enter the arena to more established companies.
Of course, all the bigger ticket items also get featured on the front of kickstarter…which means you get pushed down pages into the listing (so, the idea that it brings more traffic to kickstarter in general is silly).
For example, I’m on there now… and I have 3,500 views on my project (for about a week).
The big ticket game on kickstarter now has about 49,000 backers (those are backers, not views…in a few days less than I’ve been there).
Where did the traffic go? They definitely aren’t sticking around to browse past the top listings (and I’m pretty high actually).
And then you have other issues like reward tiers and what people expect (larger companies can offer a lot lower reward tiers, but also offer higher tiers offering less, and have the entire product management pipelines already set up…T-shirts, box sets, collector editions). People are willing to give a lot more for a box of the game to a bigger ticket item then they would for a smaller project (which means, smaller projects have to give a higher percent of the money back in the form of rewards).
So…all together… frustrating ~_~
Which will generally fail as the public is not that dumb.
Case in point VM finished in 2007, so its been six years with no new show or film, Red Dwarf was in talks for a almost a decade about a film that never materialised and is often suggested as a factor as to why further TV series weren’t filmed. It quickly becomes clear to the public when publishers are not interested in funding something and beyond that point its highly unlikely anything will happen. That is the point when kickstarters will take over.
Anything that is already successfully will not go to kickstarter, there is no point as its always a risk. For example The Wildman game from Gas Powered Games, that only made half its target before it was pulled. It was pretty clear there were some strange going on’s with that project that the community picked up on which I feel goes a long way to explain why it never made it. I mean compared to several other high profile game kickstarters it should have easily reached it total in a few weeks, not miss it by half a few days before the end.
So VM has been successful this time, if it does well at box office and DVD I very much doubt it would be as successful a second time or third time, but you know what, even if it is who cares? It built up a loyal fan base who are desperate for more content and who are willing to pay.
Nothing, there never was. As I said kickstarter itself started out small, so obviously it appealed and could be seen as helping the small guy out, but that as far as i’m aware was never its intent. The intent is clear, use the concept of ‘crowd-sourcing’, the ability of many people to make small or large pledges to enable a project to be completed. Nothing was ever guaranteed though, plenty of projects didn’t reach funding goals, plenty of projects failed to engage people or have a large enough fan base to get started.
Welcome to capitalism, where money makes money, thats always been the case, kickstarter never changed that.
Which would still happen regardless simply due to the sheer number of people using kickstarter these days, looking for their quick fix, short-cut to riches.
and they were never there for your beckon call to begin with. I don’t understand this feeling of ‘entitlement’. I mean I wish you all the best with your project, and hell you’ve managed to raise over $10k which is pretty good for an unknown developer. However without a large fan base the pledges are never going to flow in, as it really comes down to whether people like your project to want to invest in it. Marketing may reach more of those people, but its certainly not a given.
Nonsense, if people are only supporting your project for ‘big’ rewards then you are doing it wrong, that is fundamentally not what kickstarter is about at all.The point is to get people enaged with your project (assuming its a project that would engage people to start with), but thats your job, not kickstarters. Kickstarters only role is to act as an intermediary, though one which will highlight new, popular and successful projects as it helps themselves.
I can understand that, but heck, when would you ever have had the opportunity to collect $10k interest free previously? Honestly I think you’ve done well and I really hope you find a way to reach your target, but lamenting that big business is moving in on kickstarter is not going to help. Its also not a factor in you not reaching your goal.
Marketing is huge… it is about reaching a large number of people. I would be funded if I reached a large number of people.
What entitlement? The argument people bring up in support for these large companies coming to kickstarter is “it helps us all! they bring traffic to the site and to all our projects!”
When in reality, they bring traffic to themselves…and maybe the other top features (which are also biggies).
It just is how it is. Good or bad, it doesn’t matter…it just isn’t the “answer to indie funding” that people were hoping.
But, it did lead to me some other ideas, so, should be interesting 
Oh I agree. Kickstarter obviously took the plunge here, and it’s obvious that a $2Mn project is far far bigger than any project that has been on Kickstarter previously.
Kickstarter is just a funding model. If you like it - use it, if you don’t, don’t. Don’t feel entitled to something you never owned.
Sure… “It is just business”. They started off small… gained a lot of attention as “the little guys” worked hard advertising and growing with them. Then, saw they could make more money by shifting their focus …so did.
It is how it is. But people can still have thoughts on it without being “entitled” (I love this new buzzword lately, almost as awesome as hipster).
How do you suggest Kickstarter “prevent” big boys then?
And? They offered a service people liked, and they used it. Welcome to business. Unless you actually think big business is evil and all the little guys should shun them [is that even legal?], I’m not sure what the problem is?
How so?
For example, the link in the OP that you’re happily vilifying… what did Kickstarter actually do?
Huh, funny to see people going mad, blaming kickstarter for failing their projects.
So, your game was not funded, who do you blame not yourself of course! You blame damn kickstarter right? Haha, that’s the spirit!
As npsf3000 pointed kickstarter is just a funding model. You use it or do not use it. They don’t owe you a cookie!
If your product is interesting to people, they will buy it. <read again!
No matter what bonuses and promotions you are trying to paint there, if the customers want to buy it they will.
Now, if you can’t sell, in your case fund your product you have 2 ways:
I think kickstarter is the biggest thing after inventing Paypal !
So many small countless projects got funded because of this funding model, which otherwise would never have came to see the light.
I don’t? The big boys are here to stay (and more to come). It is just the direction kickstarter is heading and it is increasingly big business (with strong band recognition).
I think simply the smaller guys don’t have as much of a place on kickstarter. Specifically, for indie games, I think we need an entirely different model of crowd funding (one based on smaller continual flow to work along side building fan bases ).
Do indies really need just a lump sum on money? To compete on a 30-60 day campaign schedule to raise it or lose it all? It is great if you are established with following…but most indies don’t have that (and don’t have the marketing capabilities to media blitz and get the attention).
There should be a website created to house indie projects looking for funding (where developers at different stages could apply and go through a low level screening to ensure quality and scope to a basic standard… to keep out “noise”). Kind of like indieDB, but with more social aspect / design and with crowd funding focus.
Once accepted, the site would act as a centralized project hub and crowd funding resources with social networking (for gamers, or developers… kind of like how facebook here has “Pages” and “People”). Developers would be able to do updates, embed videos, and set funding goals and pre-order tiers (similar to the idea on kickstarter).
They might also set a “start goal”, the point at which they would begin development when enough fans have been reached (basically, the point where someone could comfortably go full-time for a month or two). Perhaps even allow them to set up funding milestones that cover a month of development (so fans can see how long of development time they have been funded for and how long they have left)
The big difference here is there is no time limit. Developers would rely more on a slower revenue from pre-sales backing as they develop. As they develop, they would be doing it openly and engaged with fans. Continuing the campaign to get more support.
~~Note: Perhaps it could even be structured in a “subscribe to this developer” type of monitization? 2 dollars a month to get access to all their developer journals and updates and builds. After X amount of months or a certain dollar reached, you get whatever reward tiers the developers sets (so, 7 months at 2 dollars, you get the full game when it is released). This gives low risk to fans as they follow along…and if they don’t like how it is going, they can pull their funding.
Basically, it takes the idea of crowd funding to the next level. Makes it more personal and engaged…and fits it to the needs of a tiny indie team that might not need the full amount up-front to make a game… but simply help along the way to continue development (licensing, getting a demo made for investors, basic development issues that require a little seed money to keep going to get to those milestones).
It would also offer as a vetting for indie games, giving them TONS of publicity up to release as they build their fan base (ensuring a better release). And basically centralize the entire indie industry around a public funding option.
I think this might go very well with ouya (if they backed something like this). Solidifying ouya as “the indies console”… allowing the console to gain from controlling such a social media hub for indies (featuring certain games on the console, or running specials, or even engaging the public further by having monthly contests where they contribute 1,000 dollars to the favorite indie of the month).
Of course it sucks for the little guy, but then, Kickstarter always did. If i tried to find any project, my reach was simply limited by what they showcased on the website, what was on the first few pages, after that it became near impossible to continue finding other, smaller projects.
What annoys me the most is that this isnt some otherwise indie film company, like working glass entertainment, this is warner bros. They can fund a project for millions more than whatever VM will raise and not have it scratch their income. This whole post, that whole article, could be life changing to someone who really needs it, and it sure as hell isnt like warner brothers need it. I’m sure the VM team need it as much, and i don’t see why warner bros. need to be included at all, films have been made for less than 2 million. Considering the indie film market, two million is actually a hellufa lot.
The idea that kickstarter is there to fund the little guys, indie creators or one off producers, is amazing, the whole concept is inspring, and life affirming. And i dont think that should be taken for granted, nor should it be exploited, i understand that the team over at Kickstarter want to make as much money as possible, financially speaking larger projects mean more money for them, as they get whatever % they take out of the the 2 million (for example). But it would certainly suck for the little guys, more than it already does, if this was the case. I’m only learning myself at the moment, and Kickstarter is one of tens-of-different-routes to take for publicity and money making, and its certainly one that i would like to rely on if i ever get to the point where i need to publish a game. And i’m sure hundreds of others feel the same way. I dont want one of the most succesful ways taken away from me, before i even get the chance to attempt it.
Source? From my reading of the Kickstarter, this is a passionate actor and 50,000 fans trying to resurrect a dead TV series.
As someone who lobbied for years for my own favorite IP to be continued [and it finally was, thanks to Star Citizen] I can certainly understand their motivation.
I understand the fans motivation, my issue is with warner bros profiting from something they are not funding, when they can clearly fund this for as much as every other film, 50mill +. And if warner bros just funded them, this kickstarter wouldn’t exist.
I started watching veronica mars, just to see what all the fuss was about.
At the end of the Warner Bros will be providing substantial resources and as a business have a right to expect a profit. Whether those resources be as little as rights to the IP, or as far as funding, talent, distribution etc. is to be seen.
At the end of the day, everyone is likely to be happy. The fans get the show they want, Warner Bros gets some involvement, the actors get paid etc. Nobody is doing this because they think it’s right or good but because they all see a benefit for themselves in it.
Well clearly they can’t fund this project and some 100’s more on the management department desk. Or there will be no Warner Bros.
SHIMMY What is clear is that you don’t have much understanding of entertainment industry economics. You give into your emotions and draw conclusions too soon. If someone makes profit on a product, then it must be simple in your view.
There are tons of shows, movies that got canceled just in time, thus to avoid bankruptcy. Anyone remembers United Artists Studio? and what happened after few several bad investments into bad movies, while the expectations were higher?
Here is the list of box office bombs If this doesn’t ring the bell, then the further conversation is pointless.
You guys shouldn’t be so enraged about kickstarter. Although it’s the most popular crowd funding website its not the only one. Indiegogo comes to mind, and unless they all adopt these policies then just switch to one of those.