vcoleiro1
Hardcore Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,685
@WizardStan, I got your point , I was adding to, and expanding on the discussion + giving my 2 cents worth on things
With the ICP2 , There were more things blamed than that. Craig claimed that parts that had been quoted to him before the project , had then gone up. I seem to remember ED said at the time that the nubs craig used no longer were going to be made and that required for newer nubs which probably needed a pcb chnage etc. When that happned, Craig didn't have any cash to pay for new firmware to be coded for the new nubs.- this was part of the reasons he gave when the project was canceled. Plus the decision to buy a 3d printer and all the other bad decisions. Plus you had the huge communication issue between the team and the head honcho - remember that.
On a side note, we still don't know what happened to the cash a certain someone got. And no one knew if he had done anything with his alloted cash. Remember we didn't even know if he had made the molds, clamps etc nor did link or mweston know who said such
Here's a quote from MWeston after the failure
" no samples of plastics ever injected through the molds (if they were actually made), no final samples of the dome switch stickers and no clamps (that I ever saw) were the problem. Link even considered finding money elsewhere to try and finish this and reward the backers but it's pointless when none of us STILL don't have any idea if any of these things ever existed."
Ah those mystical clamps no one really saw much of or knew would work or not.
But that's not to say feature creep isn't an issue, it is, and might have been a factor for the ICP2. But the biggest factor IMO was the team head honcho. He could have at any point stopped going for the LEDs if that was becomming an issue. You said it yourslef. it was his will to keep going with it. But it was a number of things, some of which I mentioned in the previous paragraph
That said, there are very few campaigns ive backed where things weren't added. I can't actually think of one I can honestly say nothing was added. But a lot succeeded. To me a much better indicator is the team itself. Everything stems from that - even feature creep - that happens by the decision of the team. . Where Feature Creep causes an issue, it isn't that feature creep is the cause of the issue, it's a symptom of a cause. And that cause is the team itself allowing it and not properly costing it.
There are varied reasons for campaign failure like:
Peachy printer, a team member stole $250k allegedly
Lily drone, team allegedly lied about the thing being a real prototype and mocked up the video. Then apparently didn't know how to make it real after getting a huge amount of cash.
But the big one:-> People starting things (especially in the older days) with no proper prototype, because they didn't know how to do it themselves. Then expecting the crowdfunding cash to be able to hire people to make something which wasn't costed or even vetted to see if it was realistic in the first place. Most failed or suspect campaigns go into this bucket. PGS, Smach Z (original), Gemini PDA etc etc.
Then you have campaigns like the Vega+ where there's infighting in the team. Or starting a camapaign based on flexible funding like "The 64" and thinking you can make two console (handheld and home) with $100k.
The reasons for failure are varied, but I'd say those campaigns that had inexperienced teams and those that didn't have a proper prototype or cost analysis lead the pack in regards to reasons campaigns failed.
This is why when I look at a crowd funding campaign, I look at the teams experience. Have they got a prototype. Is their device Pie in the Sky. Does their crowdfunding target seem like it could build and deliver the product etc.
But each to their own opinion
With the ICP2 , There were more things blamed than that. Craig claimed that parts that had been quoted to him before the project , had then gone up. I seem to remember ED said at the time that the nubs craig used no longer were going to be made and that required for newer nubs which probably needed a pcb chnage etc. When that happned, Craig didn't have any cash to pay for new firmware to be coded for the new nubs.- this was part of the reasons he gave when the project was canceled. Plus the decision to buy a 3d printer and all the other bad decisions. Plus you had the huge communication issue between the team and the head honcho - remember that.
On a side note, we still don't know what happened to the cash a certain someone got. And no one knew if he had done anything with his alloted cash. Remember we didn't even know if he had made the molds, clamps etc nor did link or mweston know who said such
Here's a quote from MWeston after the failure
" no samples of plastics ever injected through the molds (if they were actually made), no final samples of the dome switch stickers and no clamps (that I ever saw) were the problem. Link even considered finding money elsewhere to try and finish this and reward the backers but it's pointless when none of us STILL don't have any idea if any of these things ever existed."
Ah those mystical clamps no one really saw much of or knew would work or not.
But that's not to say feature creep isn't an issue, it is, and might have been a factor for the ICP2. But the biggest factor IMO was the team head honcho. He could have at any point stopped going for the LEDs if that was becomming an issue. You said it yourslef. it was his will to keep going with it. But it was a number of things, some of which I mentioned in the previous paragraph
That said, there are very few campaigns ive backed where things weren't added. I can't actually think of one I can honestly say nothing was added. But a lot succeeded. To me a much better indicator is the team itself. Everything stems from that - even feature creep - that happens by the decision of the team. . Where Feature Creep causes an issue, it isn't that feature creep is the cause of the issue, it's a symptom of a cause. And that cause is the team itself allowing it and not properly costing it.
There are varied reasons for campaign failure like:
Peachy printer, a team member stole $250k allegedly
Lily drone, team allegedly lied about the thing being a real prototype and mocked up the video. Then apparently didn't know how to make it real after getting a huge amount of cash.
But the big one:-> People starting things (especially in the older days) with no proper prototype, because they didn't know how to do it themselves. Then expecting the crowdfunding cash to be able to hire people to make something which wasn't costed or even vetted to see if it was realistic in the first place. Most failed or suspect campaigns go into this bucket. PGS, Smach Z (original), Gemini PDA etc etc.
Then you have campaigns like the Vega+ where there's infighting in the team. Or starting a camapaign based on flexible funding like "The 64" and thinking you can make two console (handheld and home) with $100k.
The reasons for failure are varied, but I'd say those campaigns that had inexperienced teams and those that didn't have a proper prototype or cost analysis lead the pack in regards to reasons campaigns failed.
This is why when I look at a crowd funding campaign, I look at the teams experience. Have they got a prototype. Is their device Pie in the Sky. Does their crowdfunding target seem like it could build and deliver the product etc.
But each to their own opinion
Last edited:
