Oh, Playboy and reality TV are going strong, but the celebs who appear on them are often perceived as lacking any other opportunities.
My point is that Kickstarter is Playboy and reality TV in your analogy, so while it may turn out that it attracts has-beens, your example doesn't say anything about how successful it will be, only about the sort of celebrity it may attract. I'm sure Kickstarter would be thrilled to be as well-known, financially successful, and long-lived as Playboy (though without other aspects of their reputation of course).
Congratulations for being the only one here (including Mr. Geigner) to surmise the real reason for this tragedy. Doctors and hospitals are required by law to report all gun-related (or suspected gun-related) injuries to the police.
There are at three other comments mentioning this issue.
"emulators created to play illegally copied Nintendo software"
If it's rephrased slightly to
"emulators that were created in order to play illegally copied Nintendo software" does it make more sense? You can see now that he's talking not about emulators in general but about emulators whose creators have in mind illegally copied Nintendo games?
I have do idea what his expenses are like but yeah Hollywood movies are seriously out of control.
Or maybe he shouldn't be doing projects so big that he can't self fund.
I don't agree with that. If he has a good idea that he needs, or just wants, extra funding for, he should be free to seek it.
Why does creativity need to cost anyone any money?
If you can find high quality all volunteer work and donated equipment and have the spare time to devote to it, great. Not everyone does, and it's a good thing that there are ways to raise money for creative endeavors.
It is reasonable for people to ask why someone who has already been well-paid by the system needs to crowdfund.
Sure, as long as you're open to answers, such as in this case "he's raising part of the money through crowdfunding and part from his own money because he doesn't want to be tied to Hollywood". I have no problem with the questions, it's the conclusion that "he shouldn't be doing this because he already has money" without asking the question that doesn't make sense.
Why do the "rich" need people to give them money?
This is not a question unique to crowdfunding. Why should I pay for a movie ticket when Tom Cruise is already rich? Why doesn't he just fund the movie and pay for my ticket? I'm sure he can afford it. This is really the same question just applied to a different business model, and how much money the person has is equally irrelevant. If you want to see the movie, you buy a ticket. If you want to ensure that the project is completed, you help fund it. If not, you don't.
What's to explain? If everyone agreed with you he wouldn't get any money donated. Clearly that's not the case since the project is working fine. If the facts don't fit your narrative, maybe you should reexamine your conclusion. On the other hand, I suspect you'll reexamine the facts instead. Probably all those people donating are just dumber than you and don't realize what they're doing, right?
The number of jobs 'saved' by bailing out X are equally offset by losses in other areas of the economy.
Unless you actually have facts to back that up, this assertion is at least as speculative as the reasoning leading to the bailout. I don't know the numbers, but when considering all the ancillary businesses that would be damaged or wiped out by GM and/or Chrysler going out of business, it may have been better to bail them out. How much would we have spent on unemployment benefits if we had not done so? What would the effect be on wages across the economy if we had that much higher unemployment?
Some creatives are concerned that Kickstarter will begin to ignore them and not put in any effort to help them out.
If they're expecting Kickstarter to put in effort to help them out, then they're in the wrong place. That's not what the site is about.
Although some of you think Kickstarter has no say in who gets to use it for fundraising, that isn't the case. Projects are rejected. And if everyone tried to use it, even if they had no chance to raise money, Kickstarter's failure rate would go up and reflect negatively on Kickstarter.
That makes them biased toward safe projects, not large ones. In fact they are well served by having lots of projects in many different areas more than they would by having a few large ones, because that reduces the risk of large scale failure.