Crowdfunding service says creators benefit even in failure

Kickstarter sticks to all-or-nothing policy

Crowdfunding service Kickstarter has no plans to alter its all-or-nothing funding policy.

That’s according to a statement, given to Gamasutra, following a game that missed its funding goal by a just $28.

Backers pledged 99.94 per cent of the $49,972 needed to fund DreamQuest;s trading sim Alpha Colony, but because of Kickstarter’s policy they will receive none of it.

Kickstarter says that it doesn’t want to put project creators in a situation where they’re forced to deliver anything under budget. It wants to “protect” them from the awkward situation of not being able to deliver on their backer rewards, t-shirts, CDs, collector’s items and so on, which are often dependant on reaching their minimal funding goal.

And that goes for backers too. Those funding a project see value in it, but they deserve to have they’re investment protected.

"It creates this narrative arc," Kickstarter says. “People get sort of emotionally invested in this idea. If you’re approaching the deadline, and you’re short, people rally behind it.

“It’s almost like a gamification.”

When asked what advice Kickstarter would give to game developers, like DreamQuest, who just missed their goal, it said: “It’s not like you’re walking away with nothing.”

Crowdfunding campaigns have the potential to build a community and momentum. Developers can take those gains elsewhere. And there is nothing to say they can’t re-launch a project in Kickstarter.

However, the argument for alternative funding policies is likely to continue as other projects fail to meet their goals. Earlier this year, David Perry suggested to Develop that crowdfunding should operate in a milestone format, so creators get backers’ money when they met those milestones.

About MCV Staff

Check Also

Technology and the market will set the cost of triple-A productions – it’s not an inevitable and negative escalation

The idea that the industry will stagnate because of rising costs is a historically flawed argument based on historical data