I don't have any opinion or experience with this project specifically, I thought the stretch goals were a bit silly but then again what can you do with board game.
I was just surprised that the original comment I've replied was done voted because the OP also made no assertions (negative or otherwise) towards this project but asked a question about how the kickstarter board game scene operates in general.
It's good to hear that your experience with this project was a good one, I still do not like crowdfunding, I more or less see it as capitalism at it's worst which allows for opportunistic people to operate without the most important restriction of the free market - responsibility towards your investors.
And while I do see the appeal in crowdfunding and I do understand that it might be the only way to grinlight certain projects or products, it seems to be used too much these days, and in many cases by individuals or companies that would not have issues getting funding through traditional channels which means they either want to profit more of their product (kickstarter funding is considerably cheaper than any other source of funding bar government grants) or the actual risk of that project is too high for any sensible investor to invest in it in the first place.
Whats worse is that Kickstarter has very little incentive to combat this type of behaviour since it's their source of revenue, they get their cut regardless if the project succeeds or not, they do not inherit any (or very little) of the risk, and without actual legislation that will define rules for crowdfunding I don't see them enforcing any real restrictions by themselves unless we as consumers stop playing their game, and based on the fact that Kickstarter only seems to get more popular with every disaster I don't think that day would arrive any time soon.
I understand your perspective completely, and I agree with you on the central point of Kickstarter needing to figure out how to look after the backer. When you have companies effectively using Kickstarter as a pre-ordering and marketing system rather than a means of raising capital without going to investors, there's a problem.
What I'm becoming more and more concerned about, however, is products which are clearly unviable, or just plain silly. There seems to be a surge in people saying 'A computer the size of a pack of cards? I can make that!' (to use a random example rather than picking on any particular product) and then collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a low quality Raspberry Pi clone. Or even worse, nothing at all, and going bankrupt before they get the chance to refund backers (as if that was ever in their plan).
Jamey definitely didn't need to raise 1.8 million to get his game into production, (he asked for $33k I think). I imagine that the success was a bit of a shock, and he's considering pulling out of using Kickstarter in the future in favour of a more traditional pre-order route (he's written a fair amount about it on his blog http://stonemaiergames.com/e-newsletter/blog/, which is a very interesting read whether you like Kickstarter, the business of board games or neither).
Outside of rare situations, people need multiple successful board game Kickstarters now to earn a full-time income on top of expenses. I'm finding that to be a good quality check since the first bad project is the last for any aspiring game designer.
However, that is not the case in the sleazy consumer products/Internet of Things area of Kickstarter, where it is common to do things like pay consultants 10-33% of money raised to pump up the campaign, something that's only viable if the development costs aren't significant enough for the project to turn out well.
> it seems to be used too much these days, and in many cases by individuals or companies that would not have issues getting funding through traditional channels
I have seen this a lot, people suggesting that it is somehow wrong or destructive to use Kickstarter unless you have no other options.
Why? What if he just likes Kickstarter, it works well for his funding and pre-order needs, and his audience is familiar with it? Why should he stop using something that works to cobble together some other system that does the same thing? Why should he use a 20th century funding strategy and business structure when we live in a time when you can just fill out a form, press a button, and then run a business out of your kitchen? Isn't that kind of the dream?
The only argument I've heard is that it somehow takes revenue away from other more constrained Kickstarters. I guess the idea is that people go onto Kickstarter with a fixed budget and choose some number of projects to back within that budget.
But I have doubts that "is this within my budget for Kickstarter projects?" is a common purchasing constraint. And there is also the fact that by putting his projects on Kickstarter, he is repeatedly drawing his customer base to the site, many of whom will then browse for other related content, thus increasing the funding for other projects.
It's good to hear that your experience with this project was a good one, I still do not like crowdfunding, I more or less see it as capitalism at it's worst which allows for opportunistic people to operate without the most important restriction of the free market - responsibility towards your investors.
And while I do see the appeal in crowdfunding and I do understand that it might be the only way to grinlight certain projects or products, it seems to be used too much these days, and in many cases by individuals or companies that would not have issues getting funding through traditional channels which means they either want to profit more of their product (kickstarter funding is considerably cheaper than any other source of funding bar government grants) or the actual risk of that project is too high for any sensible investor to invest in it in the first place.
Whats worse is that Kickstarter has very little incentive to combat this type of behaviour since it's their source of revenue, they get their cut regardless if the project succeeds or not, they do not inherit any (or very little) of the risk, and without actual legislation that will define rules for crowdfunding I don't see them enforcing any real restrictions by themselves unless we as consumers stop playing their game, and based on the fact that Kickstarter only seems to get more popular with every disaster I don't think that day would arrive any time soon.