? Kickstarter functions in this case as a pre-ordering process. They do not "get nothing back in return" - they get a copy of the game when it's done.
That's like saying that rich entrepeneurs should fully fund their next company, rather than seeking VC. Sure, it's one way to do it, but it's not the only way...
Except VCs get equity, they get a return on their investment. Not a copy of the product. Do you think ycombinator should have funded dropbox in exchange for a free dropbox account? Like I said in the post you replied to, he has access to VC funding. He chose not to take it because he can abuse kickstarter to get the same funds without giving up anything in return. It is nothing like saying they should fund it personally instead of taking VC money, I specifically said taking VC money was one of the two options he should have taken.
He's doing a tremendous service to Kickstarter in fact. It's beautiful that the platform can be used to get the ball rolling on a potentially fantastic new gaming world. One of the most renowned video game developers in history chooses to use crowd funding to kickstart his new game, and directly involve those who are willing to take a risk with their money because they want to see the game exist - what a tremendous accomplishment for Kickstarter.
Because it is contrary to the stated purpose of kickstarter. I am treating the backers like adults. Why do you think that "hey, that's really not what kickstarter is for" is patronizing?
Where exactly is that stated? As far as I know, and according to the FAQ and project guidelines of Kickstarter, there's no rule or implicit understanding that only creators who can't fund their own projects should apply. In fact, they specifically mention that KS is about more than money.
And I find it patronizing because your complaint is about the poor backers who get nothing for their money. Why exactly do you feel qualified to judge that on their behalf? It's up to them to know what they get in return, and if that should or not be important in their decision to back the project.
That wasn't papsosouid's complaint, which pertained to the fact that the project creator can afford to pay for the project, and so shouldn't be using KS.
You say it is contrary to the stated purpose of Kickstarter. Can you link or quote something to back that up? All I've ever seen them say is that it is a platform to fund creative projects. This is a creative project.
For game developers, even millionaire game developers, Kickstarter offers some level of freedom from real big bilion dollar game publishing corporations. So even if Richard Gariott has a lot of money, maybe you can at least appreciate he is a little guy in the context of the game publishing business.
The same reason blatant scams get allowed, kickstarted has a significant financial incentive to allow as much as possible. Why would they shut down a kickstarter that will put $50,000 in their pockets?
How does that possibly fit with your claim that it is against the stated purpose of Kickstarter? Kickstarter gets to define what their purpose is, and their actions are as clear as their words. You'd have stronger ground complaining about Kickstater than this project.
VCs also put a lot more money than $45 into it. Besides that fact, Kickstarter has to approve any project that appears on the site, so THEY obviously feel this is perfectly okay. I trust their opinion above some random person on the internet who wants to keep KS 'pure.'
Also this project is good for KS because it will likely bring at least a few new people onboard to join the site and fund this project (seem to recall them saying once people join they tend to start funding more projects), not to mention the obvious that they get their cut to help fund further improvements on the site.
That's like saying that rich entrepeneurs should fully fund their next company, rather than seeking VC. Sure, it's one way to do it, but it's not the only way...