Hacker News Reader

Comment by tinco | Hacker News Reader

So 13.000 people risked $50, and they lost. This is a painful reminder? It's just $50, it's no ones livelihood except the that of the Winterkewl people. They thought they could do something, turns out they couldn't.

Why does this author take offense to the tone? Isn't it clear as day? The game won't be made, so the backers won't get their reward. The studio did their best, but it wasn't enough so now they're stopping. Yes the Kickstarter says there should be a refund, but obviously the studio should have spend all of their money by now. That refund clause is just to make sure companies don't go taking money without being indebted to the backers if they fail. This one does go bankrupt, so everything is in good order.

He says Yogscast and Winterkewl are to blame, what for? For attempting to do something cool for their fans but failing? There's no shame in that.

View on HN

So you're saying that if I overpromise something and get a bunch of people to give me money for it, I have an escape hatch to never repay the money? Then it's appealing to start some BS kickstarters, never deliver, and never refund the backers (and isn't that a problem already?).

Is Yogscast to blame? Sure - they misled people into paying for overhyped vaporware by throwing their name on it. They also have the money to refund people, and right now they're trying to hang on to their money as tightly as they can.

The escape hatch is either you going bankrupt and/or refunding people, sure. Not much of an escape hatch, really. Also, if you endorse and support something like this and it fails your reputation takes a hit.

I don't think it's a big deal when it comes to luxuries like that. Also, I like kickstarter for supporting people who do cool stuff they can't finance any other way. I really don't care if they fail or not too much since I don't spend much money on it. (Hey, and for me personally it has always worked out so far.)

Maybe we need a Kickstarter competitor that is a lot more clear in its marketing that backing a project is a donation to people making something you think is cool, with those people sending you something as thanks if they are able to. I get so frustrated with the perception of Kickstarter as a pre-pay store and Kickstarter's inability or unwillingness to change that perception.

No, because that would be mismanagement, it would make you liable for a lawsuit by the backers. The government would hold you personally responsible for the debt of your LLC and you might go to jail.

There's no escape hatch, this is business.

Yogscast has nothing to do with this endeavour, it's a separate LLC that attempted to make money. I don't see why Yogscast would not try to hang on to their money. They have mouths to feed as well don't they?

I don't get why people are out for blood over $50 lost on a bet.

> Yogscast has nothing to do with this endeavour, it's a separate LLC that attempted to make money

As TFA notes, the entire Kickstarter page (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/winterkewlgames/yogvent...) is written from the perspective of Yogscast.

"We feel incredibly lucky to have been given the opportunity to entertain you as we play games made by other people..."

"Countless times we've felt limited by games and come across features we have wished we could change. 'Come On Blizz!' Simon would yell..."

"Since we'll be helping to develop the game we'll be able to ask YOU the players what features you want and actually have them created..."

"We aren't programmers or artists but luckily we have close friends at Winterkewl Games who are..."

"We started concept work and pre-production during our trip to Los Angeles in October 2011..."

"Winterkewl’s artists, modelers, animators and programmers are partnering with us on this project to create the game our community wants..."

"We're truly honored to have the opportunity to bring the Yogscast to life in a game of our own making..."

So it's not hard to see how people could have gotten the impression their involvement in the project would be deeper than "we handed it over to those guys, blame them."

Well it could be then that the backers stand a chance of winning a lawsuit against Yogscast for misleading them. Still I think it does depend a lot on the screens the backers saw when they commited their pledges. If those clearly said Winterkewl llc, then who knows what a judge would say?

The problem is than an inexperienced team will genuinely believe they can deliver an ambitious project and it takes someone with industry experience to see that they're biting off more than they can chew. I don't think anyone is being deliberately deceptive.

There should be some sort of due diligence process for projects that raise large amounts of money. I.E. if a project raises over 50k, they're obligated to hire a qualified and independent 3rd party to verify their project plan before any money is released.

>. if a project raises over 50k, they're obligated to hire a qualified and independent 3rd party to verify their project plan before any money is released.

Ya, that would be a complete logistical nightmare. It's simple: the more failures there are the in the market the more backers will react to projects with skepticism. The creators themselves then must go to greater lengths to prove the viability of the deliverable. If you end up getting sold vapourware then you learn a good life lesson for 50 bucks - caveat emptor.

It would only cost a small fraction of the money raised to prevent huge losses. Why shouldn't a project owner be obligated to spend a few percent of their total raised? The burden of logistics falls to the project owners. If they can't even be bothered to create and verify a project plan, then they don't deserve a single cent of the money they've raised anyway!

Because who watches the watchmen? Who is this "3rd party" company that verifies kickstarter projects? What metrics are they qualifying the projects?

My buddy Bob is a qualified and independent 3rd party and he has signed on with the project, so we are good to go right?

There's no shame in failing if you haven't taken your customers' money. "Kickstarter" is not synonymous with "give us your money and we'll try really hard, but if we fail, bummer for you".

Kickstarter backers are not customers. They are speculators. There may be shame in failing one's customers, but not speculators. Kickstarter backers know (or should) that any backed venture can fail.

Yes it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com