I'm more than just an "idea guy." I have skills in programming and artwork. I don't think we have the same view on Kickstarter. Not all funded games on there will succeed, but that's whey they're on Kickstarter... to get funds they otherwise wouldn't have to have their games developed. I think I'll aim for the 50% mark before putting it on kickstarter. Kinda insulted you brought up scamming. Maybe some people put up projects hoping to get a free ride, but that's not me.

I'm saying KickStarter attracts alot of people, skilled and unskilled, and the only way I personally have to sort between the skilled people (who may have poor pitches) and the unskilled people (who may have very shiny pitches) is that the person either has a track record of completed games (even if small), or the person is far enough along to prove to me that they have skill.

I'm not at all saying you're inexperienced or just an "idea guy", I don't know you so I don't know if you're unskilled or experienced. You could be very skilled! I'm not saying you aren't.

I'm just sharing A) How you can convince to me that you are skilled (track record or nearly finished).

And B) How I view the responsibility of developers posting on Kickstarter.

Once funded, and the money released to the developers, the developers instantly benefit. The only way for the contributor to benefit is for the promised project to be released. This is why developers like Kickstarter. Zero risk for the developer, 100% risk is swallowed by the contributors. It's unbalanced, and most the contributors don't realize that (from ignorance*).

Thus the developers' responsibility is to maximize the chances of the contributors not being ripped off, since the developer already has been benefited. (You want people to fund you for two years. Even if you fail in the project, you already immensely benefited People paid your salary so you can do what you love, and be your own boss, for two years. So those two years (and the development leading up to it) need to be focused in making sure you don't fail, not for your benefit, but for the benefit of the contributors who paid you to succeed.

*Ignorance as in, a lack of knowledge and understanding of the effort and risks of game development, and a lack of discernment to measure who's legit and who's not, and a tendency to get carried away by their passion about what's cool and interesting.

It's like paying a contractor in advance for a project that he says he is able to complete, and then he says, "Oops, I underestimated the money/time/labor, and I either can't complete the project or you have give me more to actually get something finished. I already spent what you previously gave me, so I can't return it, and the project is half-completed, so it's worthless to you."

[Edit:] I'm answering two questions here:

1) How far you should be before Kickstarting, if you want to convince me to contribute. This is the question you asked, reworded.

2) How I, as a developer, approach my Kickstarter responsibilities. This is the question I for some reason thought you were also asking ('How do you approach Kickstarter'), but in re-reading your one-line post, isn't actually asked anywhere! Whoops.

I think what servant is saying is, if your going to go through this process of Kickstarter go through it with the mindset of making something that will be released. To approach kickstater with the idea of doing a hobby that might turn into something big would be inappropriate and unfair to the consumer. Least that is how I am reading it.

Lot's of good posts in here, thanks all for contributing

Not at all! No one says you have to make a commercial-quality game. No one says you need to ask for $500,000 either. It's not 'Minecraft or nothing'.

Produce and get funding for something within reasonable, and build a track record. Like Archer Alec, it's only asking for $5,000 (though by the looks of things, even it's funding might be premature).

You create something within your capabilities, and once working fairly decent, get funding to improve it further in areas you can't do on your own (art, music, or whatever).

Or, create something much larger in scale (like my game - a modern 2D RPG), but still mostly achievable on your own. Then fund it for the last leg of the journey, and launch it, and build a fanbase, and repeat larger in scope. If money is changing hands, it's a business - and needs to be treated like one. Just take it in small steps, and don't try to jump too far at once.

I've been working on my game part-time for a year, and full-time for a year. I haven't asked for any funds yet, and know I won't get any if I did ask at this point in time. Thankfully, I got family willing to back me while I do this, but if you don't, just do something smaller in scope - and work on it when you can, and then try to get funding when it's almost completed. People are willing to back almost-completed games. Websites are willing to promote almost completed-games. People and websites aren't interested in 10% completed games (in the majority of cases).

I had played Minecraft a full year before it was known and popular, and said, "this could be fun... but isn't currently", and didn't buy it until it was much further along in development (almost a year later). When I did buy Minecraft, it was playable and enjoyable - even though it was in early alpha. I don't think it's coincidence that Minecraft became popular around that time period either - it became popular because it was enjoyable, and became huge because websites covered it because the websites' fanbases played it. It was around for over a year before it became popular (like I said: I played it), but it wasn't fun, so nobody bought it and nobody covered it. When it became fun, people bought it and websites covered it. I'm not saying people will buy your game and websites will cover it automatically if your game is fun, but I am saying they definitely wont if it's not fun (unless you have a big marketing budget).

The only way it can be fun is if it's farther along in development before it asks for coverage and funding, or it shoots itself in the foot. The only way it can get farther along in development before being funded is if you work on something already within your scope. I want to make some First-person 3D 2-8 player cooperative open world action RPGs. It's beyond my current capabilities to do solo, so I'm working on a series of single-player 2D turn-based RPGs as a stepping stone. I can get a 2D rpg much closer to completion before I ask for funding, and so improve my chances of actually getting funding. Short-cutting the process sabotages the project, in almost everything you do in life. Sometimes short-cuts work, but most often they actually slow you down or defeat you (though you don't realize it until later).

Again, this is my opinion and views - other people's opinions may vary.

Ah, makes more sense and agreeable.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1548272412/radio-the-universe-0

This is a really good example of Kickstarter done right. The guy had no real track record, so he waited until he had something worthwhile to show. And what he had to show was so cool and interesting that he blew his KS goal out of the water.

Indeed... and very much agree. Great example sploitz.