Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
tomimt

Interesting study considering Kickstarter projects

Recommended Posts

I found this pretty interesting study made out of Kickstarter projects. It deals with the success rates, how much money projects manage to gather, what kind of delays there's in delivery and so on.

http://socialtimes.com/kickstarter-projects-infographic_b101063

That 75% delay rate in delivering a product is pretty intersting. Of course it is undestantable, that many new businesses underestimate the work they need to do on a product, but it also is a bad sign for bigger tech projects like Okulus and Ouya, as such big delays will reflect badly upon them. But then again, I am very skeptical towards tech Kickstarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That 75% delay rate in delivering a product is pretty intersting. Of course it is undestantable, that many new businesses underestimate the work they need to do on a product, but it also is a bad sign for bigger tech projects like Okulus and Ouya, as such big delays will reflect badly upon them. But then again, I am very skeptical towards tech Kickstarters.

The degree to which a project is funded affects the delivery time, too. I.e. The more cash a project raises, the more they can invest in improving whatever they're creating, which results in a longer delivery time.

And there's the "sending the final product out" part, too, which can take more time if lots of people backed the project (and is still necessary even for digital-download-only products, since servers have to be setup, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing is thought, that the study suggest that reaching huge stretch goals is rare. So most projects that deliver late do that with the original goals in mind, which suggest that there's a lot of devs who are at least somewhat unrealistic about the actual amount of work that is needed for the completion of the project.

Of course with the projects that manage to break their own goals it's undestantable that more development time is needed for new features and such, and in most cases that is acknowledged by the project team and the backers alike. With games that is not that big issues, as games get pushed back all the time, with tech products it might be fatal thought, as it does give competitors an edge to enter the market whit similar product if the original Kickstarter like Ouya is is strugling with release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing nestled away on that page that I find really interesting is in "effects of variables on chance of success." It has "as duration increases, chance of success decreases."

This is really counter-intuitive, as you'd think a longer timescale meant more time to get backers, when actually I'm guessing it just looks like "less urgent to back" and so you get fewer backers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a lot of time might be a double edged sword. On the other hand you give people more time to get to know your project and spread the word, but on the other you give people more time to forget about the project, if they don't back it straight away. You also give people more time to change their minds about backing the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but it also is a bad sign for bigger tech projects like Okulus

Palmer Luckey already stated that he's fully aware of those possible problems and said that Oculus is prepared to produce the RIFT in "tens of thousands" without problems. So I guess it's really based on how smart a Kickstarter project is prepared. By now you can't really forsee the success of a KS, so you have to be prepared for it to be VERY successful... just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one thing nestled away on that page that I find really interesting is in "effects of variables on chance of success." It has "as duration increases, chance of success decreases."

That doesn't imply causality, though. I think that a reasonable explanation is that the length of time a project is up for depends on the creator's confidence in its success. If a creator puts up a project for a long period that's probably because they think its chance for success is low and hope that the extra time will help (and it doesn't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one thing nestled away on that page that I find really interesting is in "effects of variables on chance of success." It has "as duration increases, chance of success decreases."

That doesn't imply causality, though. I think that a reasonable explanation is that the length of time a project is up for depends on the creator's confidence in its success. If a creator puts up a project for a long period that's probably because they think its chance for success is low and hope that the extra time will help (and it doesn't).

That is so ovious! This guys are a joke, I mean the guys doing the research. If you have les confidence on it you'll give it more time, and lo confidence comes with a weak project. Moreover, inside or outside the kickstarter world, a project is defied by it's oun name PROJECT, so rarely they will get to make it on the estimate time if ever made.

You guys need to get a real job! And you know what? You get paid afterwards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one thing nestled away on that page that I find really interesting is in "effects of variables on chance of success." It has "as duration increases, chance of success decreases."

That doesn't imply causality, though. I think that a reasonable explanation is that the length of time a project is up for depends on the creator's confidence in its success. If a creator puts up a project for a long period that's probably because they think its chance for success is low and hope that the extra time will help (and it doesn't).

That is so ovious! This guys are a joke, I mean the guys doing the research. If you have les confidence on it you'll give it more time, and lo confidence comes with a weak project. Moreover, inside or outside the kickstarter world, a project is defied by it's oun name PROJECT, so rarely they will get to make it on the estimate time if ever made.

You guys need to get a real job! And you know what? You get paid afterwards!

I'm pretty sure they have a real job, as they write for an established website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is so ovious! This guys are a joke, I mean the guys doing the research. If you have les confidence on it you'll give it more time, and lo confidence comes with a weak project. Moreover, inside or outside the kickstarter world, a project is defied by it's oun name PROJECT, so rarely they will get to make it on the estimate time if ever made.

You guys need to get a real job! And you know what? You get paid afterwards!

So you're saying we shouldn't talk about the success rates of Kickstarter projects and we shouldn't study other projects on how well they've done and what kind of efforts need to be done in order to create a succesfull campaign? In the end this kind of a study can be beneficial for future projects, as as for now there has been a couple of huge projects that really don't give a thruthful picture of how hard it actually is to get funded. It has been evident on a couple of occasion, when the project has had way too delusional idea of how much people are ready to spend on a project or how hard it actually is to get peoples attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one thing nestled away on that page that I find really interesting is in "effects of variables on chance of success." It has "as duration increases, chance of success decreases."

That doesn't imply causality, though. I think that a reasonable explanation is that the length of time a project is up for depends on the creator's confidence in its success. If a creator puts up a project for a long period that's probably because they think its chance for success is low and hope that the extra time will help (and it doesn't).

That is so ovious! This guys are a joke, I mean the guys doing the research. If you have les confidence on it you'll give it more time, and lo confidence comes with a weak project. Moreover, inside or outside the kickstarter world, a project is defied by it's oun name PROJECT, so rarely they will get to make it on the estimate time if ever made.

You guys need to get a real job! And you know what? You get paid afterwards!

Yes, let's all base our beliefs on what seems 'obvious' rather than wasting our time on such frivolities as, say, checking the data. That's a super-reliable approach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is so ovious! This guys are a joke, I mean the guys doing the research. If you have les confidence on it you'll give it more time, and lo confidence comes with a weak project. Moreover, inside or outside the kickstarter world, a project is defied by it's oun name PROJECT, so rarely they will get to make it on the estimate time if ever made.

You guys need to get a real job! And you know what? You get paid afterwards!

So you're saying we shouldn't talk about the success rates of Kickstarter projects and we shouldn't study other projects on how well they've done and what kind of efforts need to be done in order to create a succesfull campaign? In the end this kind of a study can be beneficial for future projects, as as for now there has been a couple of huge projects that really don't give a thruthful picture of how hard it actually is to get funded. It has been evident on a couple of occasion, when the project has had way too delusional idea of how much people are ready to spend on a project or how hard it actually is to get peoples attention.

If I'd say anything, it would be people can talk whatever they want. Also, it'd be great to have someone making a study of kickstarter to make the maximum of it, unfortunatelly this is not the case of this lazy study. :smirk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is so ovious! This guys are a joke, I mean the guys doing the research. If you have les confidence on it you'll give it more time, and lo confidence comes with a weak project. Moreover, inside or outside the kickstarter world, a project is defied by it's oun name PROJECT, so rarely they will get to make it on the estimate time if ever made.

You guys need to get a real job! And you know what? You get paid afterwards!

So you're saying we shouldn't talk about the success rates of Kickstarter projects and we shouldn't study other projects on how well they've done and what kind of efforts need to be done in order to create a succesfull campaign? In the end this kind of a study can be beneficial for future projects, as as for now there has been a couple of huge projects that really don't give a thruthful picture of how hard it actually is to get funded. It has been evident on a couple of occasion, when the project has had way too delusional idea of how much people are ready to spend on a project or how hard it actually is to get peoples attention.

If I'd say anything, it would be people can talk whatever they want. Also, it'd be great to have someone making a study of kickstarter to make the maximum of it, unfortunatelly this is not the case of this lazy study. :smirk:

What makes you think the study is lazy? Because the results are not surprising? Sometimes results aren't all that surprising - doesn't mean you don't do the work to check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The study simply isn't that useful, that's all. It's a kind of forgettable general reading for people interested in Kickstarters. The project length is possibly the only worthwhile point of action, since it looks like there's no point in making a project longer, because it doesn't help.

I know that as a backer the timing of projects can affect what I pledge. For example I decided not to pledge more than $1 to Project Giana because Broken Sword came up, so if Project Giana was shorter I might have backed it. On the other hand if Shadowrun Online was shorter I might not have backed it, because I only did it after I was sure that Echoes of Aeons was going to fail.

Similarly I know that when a project ends has an effect, and a project which ends at the start of a month has a slightly higher chance for me to get a pledge than a project which ends at the end of a month. From comments on projects I know that this also affects others, so that would be an interesting question to research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The study simply isn't that useful, that's all. It's a kind of forgettable general reading for people interested in Kickstarters. The project length is possibly the only worthwhile point of action, since it looks like there's no point in making a project longer, because it doesn't help.

I know that as a backer the timing of projects can affect what I pledge. For example I decided not to pledge more than $1 to Project Giana because Broken Sword came up, so if Project Giana was shorter I might have backed it. On the other hand if Shadowrun Online was shorter I might not have backed it, because I only did it after I was sure that Echoes of Aeons was going to fail.

Similarly I know that when a project ends has an effect, and a project which ends at the start of a month has a slightly higher chance for me to get a pledge than a project which ends at the end of a month. From comments on projects I know that this also affects others, so that would be an interesting question to research.

SurplusGamer@ There you have a useful personal study, hope is of any help! :smirk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The study simply isn't that useful, that's all. It's a kind of forgettable general reading for people interested in Kickstarters. The project length is possibly the only worthwhile point of action, since it looks like there's no point in making a project longer, because it doesn't help.

I know that as a backer the timing of projects can affect what I pledge. For example I decided not to pledge more than $1 to Project Giana because Broken Sword came up, so if Project Giana was shorter I might have backed it. On the other hand if Shadowrun Online was shorter I might not have backed it, because I only did it after I was sure that Echoes of Aeons was going to fail.

Similarly I know that when a project ends has an effect, and a project which ends at the start of a month has a slightly higher chance for me to get a pledge than a project which ends at the end of a month. From comments on projects I know that this also affects others, so that would be an interesting question to research.

SurplusGamer@ There you have a useful personal study, hope is of any help! :smirk:

An anecdote is not the same thing as useful data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An anecdote is not the same thing as useful data.

Useful data is a collection of anecdotes. :)

Also, statistics are not the same as useful data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The study simply isn't that useful, that's all. It's a kind of forgettable general reading for people interested in Kickstarters. The project length is possibly the only worthwhile point of action, since it looks like there's no point in making a project longer, because it doesn't help.

I know that as a backer the timing of projects can affect what I pledge. For example I decided not to pledge more than $1 to Project Giana because Broken Sword came up, so if Project Giana was shorter I might have backed it. On the other hand if Shadowrun Online was shorter I might not have backed it, because I only did it after I was sure that Echoes of Aeons was going to fail.

Similarly I know that when a project ends has an effect, and a project which ends at the start of a month has a slightly higher chance for me to get a pledge than a project which ends at the end of a month. From comments on projects I know that this also affects others, so that would be an interesting question to research.

SurplusGamer@ There you have a useful personal study, hope is of any help! :smirk:

An anecdote is not the same thing as useful data.

At least, you made me have a good laugh on this one! :cheese:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...