Feeds

back to article Kickstarter kindly allows Brits to channel 95% of their money through it

Crowdfunding website Kickstarter started taking money for UK projects today - along with a five per cent slice of the action for itself. The site, which lets users pledge money for products, movies, albums and other projects that can't or don't want to get bank funding, has been running just in the US until now. In return for …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Holmes

Crypteks ?

http://www.cryptrade.com/#/home

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/crypteks/crypteks-usbtm-encrypted-and-lockable-usb-solution/comments

$196,404 funded. 0 products delivered, 0 fecks given.

Perhaps El Reg's finest crack team of tech journalists would like do a story on it?

2
1
Anonymous Coward

There are some

Really dodgy investments that will probably raise enough funds but end up bombing.

Gnats milk for one.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Crypteks ?

Did you have in writing that they'd deliver your product? No.

Kickstarter is an *investment* strategy, not a purchase. You do it *in the hope* that you'll get something out of it, in place of other investors. And given that said Kickstarter projects have normally exhausted all other forms of investment, it means the quality is usually quite low.

I have invested in precisely ONE kickstarter - Defense Grid 2. I know the team behind it can deliver a game (they did, I bought it voluntarily, and loved it). I know they aren't going anywhere any time soon (recently delivered CS:GO to Valve too). They got nearly a million in private investment first for THE EXACT PROJECT I was invested in but needed a tiny bit more to deliver the full experience. For my investment, I am *guaranteed* a video card worth more than my investment (donated by AMD who were also backing the project). Plus I will get the game I backed if it is ever released. Plus a pseudo-sequel, which is 50% written already. Plus other benefits, that hardly matter.

Kickstarter is nothing more than a donation drive. You have to trust the people behind the project, make them deliver, get promises from them and some legal way to hold them to their promises, and invest only what you can afford to lose anyway. It's not an eBay for new ideas. It's some guy you know nudging you and telling you about this great idea he's had and if you'll give him X amount of money, he'll cut you in. When it all goes wrong (or if he's just a con-artist), you will lose your money with no recourse unless you have guarantees.

99.9% of the things I've seen on Kickstarter have never or will never deliver, and certainly not in the way imagined by the investors (even the big drives for sequels to 20-year-old games by the original authors etc.). You barely have to read about them to find that out. The ones that do are already delivering but just need help to scale. And the projects have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to do what you want them to whatsoever.

Seriously, one project on there was hitting millions in investment when all they'd done was "got word that we may be able to get a famous voice actor" on the HUGE video game project that the investment was for. Personally not only was that just hilarious to be asking for investment at that stage, but also a TOTAL WASTE of invested money. But I hadn't invested. Because I knew I had zero control over it whatsoever and it wouldn't turn out how I imagined or even how they had said.

Getting scammed on Kickstarter is like getting scammed by the dodgy bloke who comes up to you in the pub with a black bag (that he keeps swapping with an empty bag to confuse you), won't let you look in it, asks for money for it, and looks shiftily every time a police siren goes past. YOUR OWN FAULT.

8
3
dcd

Re: Crypteks ?

Agreed.

Make a nice website. Beg for money. Run!

A story needs to be told!

1
1
Windows

Re: Crypteks ?

Indeed, a story which needs to be told.

@Lee Dowling

I didn't invest, I lost nothing, your rant is funny but meaningless.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Crypteks ?

My one Kickstarter investment was to Stainless Games, makers of the original Carmageddon, and the goal is a reboot of the franchise. I among many others loved the original game, and this project has a lot of support. For my contribution, I will get two copies of the game: one on Steam, the other Steam-free and for (my choice) Linux. Stainless is actually delivering regular progress reports and things do seem to be moving along. I look forward to the final release.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Crypteks ?

Ha, love this comment from an unhappy investor of that project

"A little note I just sent out to our fine folks at Crytrade. All thought the main project creator is in Lebabnon, Tom Stafford is not. Join me teaching these guys a lesson.

Hello Cryptrade,

As of today Friday, October 19, 2012 you have missed numerous delivery deadlines and promised product status updates. Clearly, this project has failed and you are no longer in line the with legally binding agreement we both jointly made via Kickstarter. As such, I am now going to exercise those rights with all legal remedies available to me under the laws of the State of Florida.

Unless I here back by noon on October 26, 2012 with a complete and accurate description of the products current status, video of a working prototype and schedule for delivery backed up with documents from the factory producing the USB stick. I will submit my lawsuit to court that afternoon.

Respectfully, I am giving you five business days to comply with this request.

Thanks,

Scott"

Good luck with that Scott. What a fool.

1
0
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Finally

I can start my project for a blockbuster porno flick based on the coalition government! Titles I am considering are "A Pleb Amongst the Pigeons" or "Bend Over for David" or "Toff Love"!

I need to raise quite a bit as I am planning on getting Meryl Streep to do a nude scene in her role as Thatcher in a scene set at a backstage after-party during the Conservative Party conference!

I am very confident that Kickstarter is totally the right place to raise funds for this project!

3
3

Correction

" If projects don't reach their funding target, the money goes back to the folks who offered it and the site doesn't get a fee"

They money's not taken until the funding goal is met. It never "goes back" because it never went anywhere.

2
0
Paris Hilton

why always the tories?

lets do a Labour set how about

Two girls for two Jags.

Carole & Cherie keep clean

Blunkett bags one

Robin the Randy.

I don't care who they rut with its how they rule.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: why always the tories?

Tory porn is in right now - is that whole master/slave "I'm cutting off your benefits pleb" thing!

Labour porn also could get confused with pregnancy porn too in search results of course!

1
0

90%, isn't it?

AFAICT from the FAQ, 5% goes to Kickstarter, 3%-5% to the payment processor, and 90%-92% to the project.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Hmm...

With projects that require crowd funding, I have to ask myself:

Why didn't a bank lend money, if they were asked to?

or

Why didn't the person/company running the project approach a bank?

Invariably I tend to find that the answer to the first question is along the lines of it being either a project that will never pay back the loan either because it's a bad idea or a good idea which hasn't been properly planned. The answer to the second question tends to be not wanting to deal with banks, which makes me suspicious of motives...

0
3
Silver badge

Re: Hmm...

Simple. The financial crisis tightened purse strings: once bitten, twice shy, not to mention the legal repercussions. Many banks won't provide loans without serious backing, and for most grassroots projects such backing is lacking. So if you can't get help from a bank or a rich friend, who else can you turn?

1
0
Bronze badge
Facepalm

Re: Hmm...

Also, read the article elsewhere on The Reg about how to fix the music industry. Loans to bands and musicians was what the record companies used to do, and financing films that might bomb was what movie studios did, but then we all decided they were evil and started to take their product for free.

1
1
Bronze badge

Re: Hmm...

Yeah, cos that 2bn just paid for a 35-year-old movie franchise - wow, that must hurt so much to take profit from and plough back into up-and-coming films. Especially seeing as the movie cost next-to-nothing to make.

By some magical accounting, some of those films are still supposed to have never made money in its entire existence (which is handy because then a lot of investors, etc. would need to see a percentage of that money).

Record companies and movie companies don't now, and haven't for a long time, financed anything that wasn't guaranteed to make money. There is no risk taking, not because people downloaded something and denied them $5m on a $10m opening weekend, but because why would you when you can make millions on an opening weekend of a film that NOBODY has even seen yet and could be absolutely rubbish (in which case, disassociate yourself from it while taking the profit) or successful (in which case milk the franchise for all it's worth).

Seriously, record companies and movie companies don't need to take risks because they make so much money it's pretty unbelievable and with some fancy accounting pay little tax or dividends to investors (have you not noticed the entire UK film industry being given grants and tax breaks?). Have done for the last 30-odd years. Every "up-and-coming" artist has proved their worth long before the record companies will touch them at all (and most of the time even the damn auditioning process makes so much money you could buy a country, ala Simon Cowell).

They don't fund the industry and never have. They milk it. The funding for it comes mainly from blinkered consumers paying through the nose several times over for the same content. The risk-takers don't exist any more (try sending in a track to a record company nowadays - instant refusal to even listen to it in case they contaminate their precious copyright) because the industry matured to the point of STUPID profits decades ago.

Seriously. Return of the Jedi - $32m budget, $400m income (just on the film, not merchandising, etc.), yet "never made a profit".

It's not a question of a handful of pirates being taking their product. Seriously, a drop in the ocean compared to their guaranteed profit on even the worst films. It's a question of those industries being completely ignorant of anything but profit. Hence the other month where EVERY movie in my local cinema was at least 4 movies into a franchise / sequel / series of films.

1
2
Stop

Re: Hmm...

tl;dr

Blah blah Blah blah Blah blah Blah blah Blah blah Blah blah Blah blah Blah blah

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Hmm...

I can't say that I find financing a band or a movie particularly attractive, what with the current levels of Internet piracy.

No, the levels of piracy don't go down if the music or film is somehow "worthy".

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Hmm...

"Seriously. Return of the Jedi - $32m budget, $400m income (just on the film, not merchandising, etc.), yet "never made a profit"."

Question. Was LucasFilm ever publicly traded? I don't think it is. Otherwise, you would think some shareholder would've seen that statement you just posted, noted the box office returns, and taken LucasFilm to court, the SEC, or whatever on charges of "cooking the books".

0
0

Re: Hmm...

Many of the projects are for small-scale production runs.

Then it becomes a nice way of handling preorders.

One I'm 'preordering' is the P112 Single Board Computer.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2057605091/p112-single-board-computer-kit

Which probably won't succeed...

0
0
Bronze badge
Stop

Re: Hmm...

Lucas Films may have been a private company, but they didn't fund the films themselves. Many films (like stage plays) are funded by investors in that specific project and often part of the actor's contracts are based on a percentage too. The sensible thing is to negotiate for a small percentage of the gross rather than a much bigger slice of the profits, as there are a myriad of ways that film companies can "lose" profits - including the amount they need to pay their investors who did negotiate on a gross takings %

0
0

Re: Hmm...

In answer to the first, you're kidding right? We're still struggling to get politicians to force the banks to lend to small businesses at the moment. Banks surely prefer to make low risk loan investments to protect them from their casino investment strategies in stocks and properties.

In answer to the second, it's easier to pay back a loan with a negligible value product that retails at the same or higher rate than the initial investment, than to pay it back in cashy-money plus interest.

0
0

Re: Hmm...

No, the sole owner of LucasFilm and LucasArts was George Lucas himself. That's why he was able to sell it to Disney so easily, he didn't need any approval.

0
0
Bronze badge

"can still pledge cash to them"

Copper coins on a string? Can I pledge tael?

0
1

I can't help but think that being in the UK means that the first person to put up a notice stating that your money will be invested in getting drunk, will get lots of money.

1
0
vlc

How far the classified add has come!

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.