My opinion on stretch goals are a little different to Mr. Schatz. Now, I have no idea on whether I may be completely and totally wrong, I am not an indie developer and I have nothing of worth or interest to put on Kickstarter. However, I see the idea of stretch goals as not only a fund for extra content, but a fund for the improvement of original content.
Say I ask a publisher for £200,000 in order to create my game. They really like the idea but understand that at £200,000, the game will be a full release. It will be playable and fun but unpolished. So, instead of giving me the £200,000, they instead give me £250,000 in order to add a bit more panache to my game. Let's just assume unlike actual publishers, they let me choose what I can do with the extra £50,000. Now, I have a few choices. I could use the money to hire some more animators and graphic designers to add a bit more polish OR I could use the money to hire game designers and bug testers to tighten up the gameplay OR I could use the money to add new features that I think players will really appreciate and enjoy. I could even split the money multiple ways so players get a little bit of each and a nicely rounded experience. What I'd like to stress is that the game itself was complete at £200,000, a Version 1.0 if you will, and was completely playable and enjoyable. The extra £50,000 was only used to improve what was originally there within the creators own vision, effectively creating a Version 1.1 before release to public. I see Kickstarter as essentially the same except with asking the audience to fund the project instead of a publisher.
One potential problem previously mention is the appearance of bloated unnecessary gameplay but that can be solved as long as the creator actually has the confidence in his conviction to tell his fans and the audience, "No". I know, I know, shock and horror. No-one wants to be told "No", particularly by a person you are personally giving money to. It's natural, it's a sense of ownership. The idea that "This person is creating a game for me/us and therefore should implement every idea I/we have". And, you are correct, to an extent. Whenever possible, anyone taking your money should listen to you and implement the ideas that will make you happy. However, noticing that I said whenever possible, this should not conflict with the creators original vision of a game. Say that my game is a tactical strategy game that, as of original vision and release, does not contain a multiplayer element. Several people investing in my game, have expressed an interest in, and interesting ideas for, a multiplayer element of my game. If I think these ideas are great and can be easily implemented into the game, ruining nothing for anyone and in fact making those that invest in the game very happy, then its a no-brainer that I should go ahead with it. However, if I don't think the ideas will work and don't think they will fit in with the idea for the game, I effectively have two choices. 1) Shoehorn in a completely out of place multiplayer aspect that in fact devalues the rest of the game in order to appease fans or 2) Explain the situation to the fanbase and effectively tell them "No" in order to stick to your guns and your game. It all depends on the relationship between the person/people creating the game and those buying/investing in the game. You should never completely disregard fans but if those fans are constraining you to a design choice through a feeling of obligation, you as the creator are completely entitled to tell the fans that the idea is not going in. Conversely, if you put in a gameplay element fans didn't want or ask for and end up ruining the experience for them, you do have an obligation to own up to that mistake and try and make the game better by listening to the fans.
So contrary to Mr. Schatz, I do not see the problems of Kickstarter as a Kickstarter related problem. In my eyes Kickstarter, as an entity, offers a framework for designers to use as they see fit. The misuse or misunderstanding on how to use Kickstarter effectively should be placed solely on the shoulders of those who misuse or misunderstand it. Similar to the instance of some of the userbase of XBox Live, the problem lies not with the actual system but with those that are making it a wholly unpleasant experience by mistreating the system. You can effectively use Kickstarter to your advantage as long as you stick to what should be some of the Isaac Asimov style cardinal rules of game creating. 1) Make a complete playable and fun game. 2) Stick to your creative vision, as long as this does not interfere with the first rule. And 3) Listen to the fans and implement their ideas as long as this does not interfere with the first or second rule. And on that particularly nerdy note, I will wait for responses.
Say I ask a publisher for £200,000 in order to create my game. They really like the idea but understand that at £200,000, the game will be a full release. It will be playable and fun but unpolished. So, instead of giving me the £200,000, they instead give me £250,000 in order to add a bit more panache to my game. Let's just assume unlike actual publishers, they let me choose what I can do with the extra £50,000. Now, I have a few choices. I could use the money to hire some more animators and graphic designers to add a bit more polish OR I could use the money to hire game designers and bug testers to tighten up the gameplay OR I could use the money to add new features that I think players will really appreciate and enjoy. I could even split the money multiple ways so players get a little bit of each and a nicely rounded experience. What I'd like to stress is that the game itself was complete at £200,000, a Version 1.0 if you will, and was completely playable and enjoyable. The extra £50,000 was only used to improve what was originally there within the creators own vision, effectively creating a Version 1.1 before release to public. I see Kickstarter as essentially the same except with asking the audience to fund the project instead of a publisher.
One potential problem previously mention is the appearance of bloated unnecessary gameplay but that can be solved as long as the creator actually has the confidence in his conviction to tell his fans and the audience, "No". I know, I know, shock and horror. No-one wants to be told "No", particularly by a person you are personally giving money to. It's natural, it's a sense of ownership. The idea that "This person is creating a game for me/us and therefore should implement every idea I/we have". And, you are correct, to an extent. Whenever possible, anyone taking your money should listen to you and implement the ideas that will make you happy. However, noticing that I said whenever possible, this should not conflict with the creators original vision of a game. Say that my game is a tactical strategy game that, as of original vision and release, does not contain a multiplayer element. Several people investing in my game, have expressed an interest in, and interesting ideas for, a multiplayer element of my game. If I think these ideas are great and can be easily implemented into the game, ruining nothing for anyone and in fact making those that invest in the game very happy, then its a no-brainer that I should go ahead with it. However, if I don't think the ideas will work and don't think they will fit in with the idea for the game, I effectively have two choices. 1) Shoehorn in a completely out of place multiplayer aspect that in fact devalues the rest of the game in order to appease fans or 2) Explain the situation to the fanbase and effectively tell them "No" in order to stick to your guns and your game. It all depends on the relationship between the person/people creating the game and those buying/investing in the game. You should never completely disregard fans but if those fans are constraining you to a design choice through a feeling of obligation, you as the creator are completely entitled to tell the fans that the idea is not going in. Conversely, if you put in a gameplay element fans didn't want or ask for and end up ruining the experience for them, you do have an obligation to own up to that mistake and try and make the game better by listening to the fans.
So contrary to Mr. Schatz, I do not see the problems of Kickstarter as a Kickstarter related problem. In my eyes Kickstarter, as an entity, offers a framework for designers to use as they see fit. The misuse or misunderstanding on how to use Kickstarter effectively should be placed solely on the shoulders of those who misuse or misunderstand it. Similar to the instance of some of the userbase of XBox Live, the problem lies not with the actual system but with those that are making it a wholly unpleasant experience by mistreating the system. You can effectively use Kickstarter to your advantage as long as you stick to what should be some of the Isaac Asimov style cardinal rules of game creating. 1) Make a complete playable and fun game. 2) Stick to your creative vision, as long as this does not interfere with the first rule. And 3) Listen to the fans and implement their ideas as long as this does not interfere with the first or second rule. And on that particularly nerdy note, I will wait for responses.
