Alpha Colony fails to meet Kickstarter funding goal by $28 | Hacker News Reader

Alpha Colony fails to meet Kickstarter funding goal by $28

polygon.com

From a comment on the Kickstarter page, it looks like someone was trolling by donating almost enough at the last second:

My wife continued watching, as I went off to bed, and I heard a loud gasp... (her hands were up on her face as I walked back in). The final bump that put it up to $49972 appeared to come from one backer's pledge raise in the final seconds, when nobody could do anything at all (like single digits of seconds). That person raised by over $800 at once, but chose (WHY?!) not to go in another $28. My perspective is that it was on purpose, they did not have the funds available, and they wanted to make a point. Otherwise that pledge (and a corresponding comment!) could have come with a minute to go, and a chance for me (or others watching) to kick in the final dollars.

Or they were really trying to make a point and/or help a cause they knew, by then, that was failing. In which case it seems to have worked. I think this wouldn't be as newsworthy had it fallen short by a thousand dollars. And the publicity the project owner will be getting could still be channelled into a happy ending.

I bet this guy would have amassed far more funds if his pledge texts hadn't been so uninvitingly big. Kickstarter should really offer a best practices on this: 1) make it simple and easy to understand each level--make your levels cumulative best as you can and then simply say "plus all previous tiers." 2) don't waste your first level on a $1 "get mentioned" reward--you're just sacrificing your above-the-fold real state with something that, from most projects I've seen, doesn't amount to a single decent level pledge (i.e. all those $1 added together make up something like twenty bucks).

Drumming up interest is as much about marketing as it is about content.

Pony up $28 yourself, get $50,000. What were they thinking?

Amazon has strict rules about sending yourself money through Amazon payments. Visa/Mastercard see it as an illegal cash advance, or money laundering. They could step into the gray area and pay someone cash to back their project, or promise to repay them later. If I were in this situation, I feel confident that I could call someone and ask for a $28 pledge. A post on Reddit or HN would have done the trick most likely.

I think the simple way around that mess is to give $28 to your friend, brother, aunt, uncle, girlfriend, or anyone else you know with a pulse that will follow through.

I'm a little confused as to why they wouldn't have done exactly that.

It's been pointed out in other comments that they were $828 down in the final seconds, and someone pledged $800. It could be that they did reach out to someone for that pledge. Though if that were the case, why didn't that person pledge $828?

This was a rare feat to come so close to the goal and fall short (http://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats). 81% of projects that reach 20% are ultimately successful, and only 0.005% of failed projects reach 81%-99% of their goal.

I think the real failure was not making a stronger final push in the last few days of the campaign instead of the last few seconds. They also should have timed the ending better. Saturday night is when people go out. Sunday evening people are online, and Monday morning after the first of the month is good because a lot of people will be online at work right after payday.

They must not have been watching the final hour of the kickstarter.

I hate to be mean and kick them when they are down, but quite frankly this might speak to their ability to execute on their final product.

$28 dollars shy of an all-or-nothing $50,000 in free (relatively) seed money, and they let it slip through their fingers? Call your Grandmother and get her to kick in.

They wouldn't have known about the $28 until after the event finished - the last hour of these things is usually a flurry.

If I'm anywhere close to $50,000 from a kickstarter campaign, I'm busting my ass to make sure I hit the goal. There shouldn't be an excuse for this. It's unacceptable.

I believe they pony-uped $800 in the final seconds according to the reports.

I believe it was within the last few seconds. Still, if he was that close it'd of made sense to get a friend to back $100

It is very lame. I take it as a sign that the people behind it would likely have mis-managed things. The failure to keep an eye on things, or find that last push that was needed, is a red flag.

If that's the case, this scenario is a win for the people who pledged money.

The people behind it were pushing for investments at the last minute. Timing was bad -- there are tons of messages from people after the fact who said, "Sorry, if I'd only known in time!" -- and they did make up an $800 short-fall in the last seconds before it ended.

It's pretty harsh to judge a team you've never met by one external symptom that actually has nothing to do with their ability to create the product.

Disclaimer: I know the guys behind the project.

I think the guy himself was not too eager to continue the project. Looking at his statement, he seems a little too willing to give up. Perhaps he thought the response was too lukewarm to continue. Most likely he needs much more than $50 000 to make this worth-while and the kick starter campaign made him feel like he would not get many future sales.

He really did come across as disappointed, and as if he'd still be so even if the project just barely met the funding threshold. But I wouldn't go as far as saying he was not too eager to continue the project. He sounds like this is his passion and he still wants it to see the light of day. He was probably dreaming big dreams of overfunding when he started the campaign--and this was a blow too hard to take. When $50k actually isn't half bad for an indie game.

I guess many people tend to look only into Kickstarter's huge successes and assume it's the norm. Really it's a small part of successful projects. I can tell this guy didn't dig much deeper into the Kickstarter dynamics when he has walls of text explaining pledges where simple "plus all previous tiers" would do--and would mean the difference of him getting funded, maybe even generously overfunded.

seriously. id call up a friend or family member to donate $28 and then just pay them back later or something.

Maybe they were $1000 short and tried frantically in the last hour to call in all the favors they could, but came up short.

Bingo; or at least $828 short, and as they were frantically contacting people, no one was home.

Lots of apologies later, but that doesn't make a project happen. Bad timing.

There's a bit of discussion on the Colorado IGDA list, which is how I know. I also know Christopher, and he is absolutely serious about making the game.

He was disappointed that so many people from the first KickStarter bailed on the second, though; the first one made it to $100k+.

Funding goals for (all KS I've contributed to) are bare, bare minimums. Better to miss by $28, than make it by $28.

Actually, I've read somewhere that a really low percentage of projects are substantially overfunded.

Most kickstarters are someone's small art project or something, though. The only ones "we" really care about are the big ones like Pebble. (I've also funded small art projects of my friends, but I wouldn't expect the greater community to really care about them.)

The thing is, for games at least, "overfunded" is probably closer to "the right funding." It's a balancing act - you often can't really-really ask for the amount you actually need, because fewer people will put money in, but if you aren't overfunded you end up in a situation where you may not actually be able to make it at all.

The whole thing ends up predicated on being the Big Popular Kickstarter that goes over budget and it really sucks. I think that maybe having two numbers on a Kickstarter page would be a good idea: "Minimum Funding LEvel" and "Optimal Funding Level", or something.

There is an "ending soon" filter on Kickstarter, but no "almost funded" option. They should consider adding that in the future.

Looks like in the final second, they were still $828 short, but someone chipped in $800... Weird.

That's some high level troll right there.

How can you not get yourself (OK, maybe there are validation checks) or a single friend to cover the last $28?

>Looks like in the final second, they were still $828 short, but someone chipped in $800... Weird.

Project gets $49,972 out of $50,000 goal. Creator says "clearly there simply isn't that much interest in building the kind of game I envisioned."

o.O;

Well, that is only enough money for a single programmer to work 9-5 for somewhere between 6-12 months.

Yeah, but that's the money they were asking for.

The bare minimum. If there was a lot of interest, it would have been easily covered.

The thing is, that's all you can ask for or you look like a scam artist or an idiot because you're over-asking. People, for better or worse, take into account how much you're asking for relative to what you promise, and fund or don't fund based on that.

The unfortunate thing about game development Kickstarters is that the worst thing that can happen is that you make exactly your goal.

You also get relative too though.

If you ask for $5000. Chances are you're going to get closer to that, than $50,000. If you ask for $500,000. Chances are you're going to get higher than the $5,000.

Plenty of people have gone for the big dollars. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternit... Granted it's Obsidian, but people still blew it out the water.

The overwhelming majority of game projects that ask for $500,000 would get $0. That's the core of the problem.

as taytus said, that's what they asked for. If they needed more, they should have asked for more.

But you can't ask for $50k, then get frustrated that's almost how much you get? You're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

He was hoping for a lot more. The previous attempt, he made over $100k, but had a $500k goal. He expected a lot more than $50k this time, not to miss the goal.

He really has been working on this game forever, and will probably make another go at it eventually.

He's a friend of mine, though I haven't spoken with him since yesterday before the KickStarter ended. If only he'd called, I would have put in the money myself, but I am led to believe that it wasn't that close until the last seconds. Asking a friend to put in $28 is easy; $828 is a bit more of a stretch.

Ahh. That sucks. Didn't realise it was his second time on Kickstarter. Sure he asked a few friends to help back it to improve the social proof throughout too. Where there's a will, there's a way. Hopefully he finds a not too difficult solution to this one.

My feeling is that more than anything, better artwork would have helped here. I just personally don't like looking at those screenshots with the bright colours and drab hex-grid landscape, never mind what the gameplay is about.

Maybe it would help if Kickstarter had a kind of pledge that said, "Only if this project would not otherwise be funded."

This is also the second time they've tried to do this[1]- their first goal was, shall we say, ambitious.

[1] http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1547218311/alpha-colony-...

Aside from the already asked question of why didn't they pony up the $28, the second thought that hits me is perhaps Kickstarter should have a margin where they will allow the project to continue at the digression of the project management? I.e. if you're within 1% of your stated goal ($500 in this case) you can choose to continue.

I could see projects that perhaps really had loftier goals and set a low number to try to encourage people to commit bow out it they were within the 1% threshold. Meanwhile being less than a tenth of a percent from your goal and not making it really sucks and likely isn't beneficial for anyone involved.

edit: Another thought: If KS still wants a hard cutoff, give the project another 6 hours or something to make that 1%.

From the stats Kickstarter have released previously, situations like this (in which a project just barely doesn't reach its target) seem extremely rare. Kickstarter works because the model is simple: a hard deadline, a hard target, and go. It sucks that they were so close, but I don't think it would be in Kickstarter's interests to tweak the system to assist almost-made-it edge cases like this.

Aw, if I'd known about this I would have kicked in. I guess publicity and outreach is a problem with Kickstarter campaigns as much as anything else.

Look at this way. If there was enough interest out there, this wouldn't have been a problem.

If you are interested in a sequel of M.U.L.E: http://www.planetmule.com/about

Games are such a waste of capital & neurons.

Make something that actually helps humanity not just lines your pockets, and wastes other humans neuron potential.

I realize that you're really just a troll and that I shouldn't give you the satisfaction, but I am just compelled to play word substitution with what you've said:

Painting is such a waste of capital & neurons.

Sculpture is such a waste of capital & neurons.

Fiction is such a waste of capital & neurons.

Music is such a waste of capital & neurons.

The ugliest part is that you know, not very deep down, that it's a dickish, indefensible statement, and that's why you made a sock-puppet account to make a shitty comment that implicitly devalues all art. It might be nonsensical and vile, but hey--you can feel good about yourself.

Go to hell.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com