The article makes it sound like a bad thing. Maybe unknown insecure people should not simply get 2 million $ for posting their stuff on Kickstarter. Just because Kickstarter doesn't enable a gold rush for everyone does not mean it won't work.

It will simply work as it has always worked: you'll have to work your way up. Start with smaller projects and make a name for yourself.

I consider this a new business model for a very select few established developers. However, I think Kickstarter can be used to gauge interest in a product, before you invest resources in developing it only to lose money in the end. This is very important, and I am sure that it will work as a great reality check for many naïve people who "just want to make videogames". It is much easier to revise why your project campaign was unappealing rather than coming to the conclusion at the end of a one- or two-year development cycle.

With Steam available and guys like Valve who go above and beyond to help their developers by doing things like handing out 50k keys to them upon request, developers have the best distribution platform imaginable, which means that the logistics are no longer something to worry about.

It's a great time to be an independent developer.

This is a great piece, and it gets to the contradiction at the heart of the new trend/buzz around creative people using the Internet in various ways to make an end-run around traditional publishing infrastructure in all industries. It's the same with big-name authors ditching their publishers to self-publish on Amazon: Sure, they make a mint, more than they would have at a traditional publisher, but they wouldn't have been able to do it were it not for the fan base they built up with their traditionally published works.

Everyone loves to bash publisher/distributors in all areas of creative endevour, and often with good reason. But at their heart these companies are accumulations of capital and expertise that allow risky investment in creative works that might fail. Everyone who succeeds in the traditional world to the extent that they don't need the publishers anymore got there because that capital took a risk on them; now they don't want to let part of their profits go back into that capital pool. The question is, if the old system blows up, who takes that risk for unknowns?

I'm certainly not saying its impossible. Probably people will be ramping up creatively, writing/making music/what have you for nothing until they build up enough of a fan base to ask for something more. But crowdsourcing is definitely not just a free handout without huge accumulated goodwill.

Sometimes when I read articles like this it seems to me they are saying "Mediocre people only make mediocre money at best."

And I'm tempted to say "And the problem is? <long dramatic pause>"

Double Fine demolishes their funding goal, and we say "but that is only because everyone already loves them, no one else can do that."

There is this concept called 'paying your dues' which historically has reflected the time an artist (or worker) spends toiling in an under appreciated way, honing their craft. And from the folks who toil emerge 'stars' who have a knack for the business or their voice resonates with a receptive crowd. Kickstarter, Amazon's Kindle store, Louis CK's self produced show, replace the part where you develop a reputation (or pay your dues) they merely give you a way to monetize your reputation and keep more of the money for yourself, rather than parasitic forces which latched on to you early in your career like trigger fish follow a shark.

I believe that kickstarter, and things like it, will give artists tremendous freedom to create the art they want to create, when the rest of the world agrees its worth creating. But there is no disruption of the fact that nobody believes you can do anything until you've already shown them that you can. That takes work. That takes time. And that time is not part of your 'high earnings' period generally.

This is slightly tangential, but it seems Kickstarter has elicited some very good behavior from Double Fine--the game is to be DRM-free and will support Linux! I really want to see more games embrace both in the near future.

With that in mind, I wonder if Kickstarter could be the model for open source games in the future. Of course, getting people to pledge for a game that will end up free may be tricky, but I think it would be doable.

I really love this analysis. People see a gigantically successful fundraising campaign like Double Fine and they think Kickstarter is the magic sauce, when in fact the sauce is good old fame and social capital.