Ripper
Зичу Вам успіхів
- Joined
- November 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,085
Yeah, I understand that. However, "the funding goal must be sufficient to complete the project, and deliver the rewards" - this is actually the case here. The stretch goal is then basically "complete the project and deliver the rewards without working ourselves to death". Perhaps this was written poorly? Shall we rephrase it?
I don't think the problem is the wording, I think the problem is a fundamental incompatibility with the deal on KS.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm sure that you appreciate there is a difference between the security offered by a developer's personal assurance that they will deliver the product, even if they have to do it for free in their spare time, and a realistically-budgeted and fully-funded project. As I understand it, KS insists on the latter.
I think it makes a nonsense of the KS policy of only collecting money for fully-funded projects, if we all say, "Back us for $1000, and if we don't get enough above that to actually fund the project, we promise to deliver anyway." KS might as well do away with the fully-funded policy entirely. It's replacing hard financial viability with personal assurances, no matter how genuinely intended.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,085