Isn’t this a bit snarky? 
There must be some misunderstanding somewhere. Even though I won’t be able to participate anytime soon. I want this program to succeed because I will be in it at some point. The purpose of raising questions is to have a conversation / discussion to give the program the maximum chance of success.
It wasn’t meant to be snarky. It was a direct response to this comment.
I responded on mobile and quoting is a bit of a pain. Apologies.
One way is for MW to set up rules to assure backers that their money will be returned to them if an actual model and perks cannot be delivered as described. MW can hold up the pledges and won’t release to the designer(s) until the promise has been fulfilled. This will be different from Kickstarter. Basically the designer(s) puts in the time and incurs the cost up front and get reimbursed and hopefully some extra after.
There could be other ways to address this issue. But that’s what comes to my mind at the moment.
You might be being silly, but I have thought about this a bit and what it’d look like, how it might get constructed.
I think I could do a decent one with the H2D, but oh man, that’s gonna be a ton of printing and filament.
More on topic though. I agree, there’s some designers that I wouldn’t mind backing based on just an idea, but those designers usually would have a history of work that helps build that trust that yeah, this is gonna happen.
MaKim was decently along in his proposed project, so there’s less worry there, but he’s certainly one of those designers I could get behind just an idea from. Looking at his body of work, it’s always impressive and so it helps build a lot of trust.
I understand where many of the posts come from.They all come from a good place. But here are some more clarification of what I think.
Backing a project based on what one has known about a project owner is definitely a way to go. Getting backers via existing social connections and appealing to the good heart of people who want to see great things happen is also a way to go.
However, there is nothing wrong with expanding the pool of potential projects and the pool of potential backers beyond the above.
A known track record should not be a prerequisite to launch a successful project. Many successful projects on Kickstarter were launched by unkown party, Bambu Lab being one of them.
A backer should not have to have known the project owner well in order to trust the project to back it. MW can set rules to take the trust out of the equation.
Potential backers who don’t necessarily back projects purely based on a good heart can still be good people and good backers. We want to know how to attract them.
I didn’t mean to imply there was. Although, to be fair, I haven’t read everything everyone has been saying. I was chiming in a couple of thoughts based on what Jon said in that last message.
I’d totally be open to any project if it tickled my fancy. It depends on how well the person presented their ideas, and how bold/outlandish the idea is.
I haven’t been too entirely excited by the starting round of projects. they’re all super cool in their own right, but not entirely what I need in life. Although, full disclosure. I did back MaKim, but mostly because I wanted to push him over the 500 dollar goal. Like he needed my help! Ha, but it’s a super cool project, so. My heart fell into it on that one.
I’ve been thinking about this whole crowdfunding thing a lot. There’s a more involved project that’s been on my mind for awhile. I’ve worked out a lot of the details in my brain, haha, but haven’t put it all into practice yet. I almost thought about it, and that the crowdfunding could be a good way to get that project off the ground. It gives me pause though and I have to ask a few questions, to which I don’t know the answer of.
The big one is what about at the end of it. I don’t want any of it to be a paid model. The whole point of the project is to broaden access. I don’t know what I could add for stretch goals. My biggest expense is frankly time. There’s some other parts, like electronic components, but I have most of the ones I’d need to at least get started. I think programming it would be the bigger sink.
The idea itself is a bit niche. I don’t think it’d be overly difficult. It’s just… niche. Which kind of makes me wonder further about the reach and what happens beyond the finishing of the campaign.
It’s hard for me to attach expectations to things, timelines. I don’t want to disappoint anyone. Even if I cobble a product together, what does that mean for long term support too? It’s not too bad with my current projects. I do support them, but since it’s all free, it’s easy to set this aside so I can deal with my day job and life, but once money starts getting more directly involved like that, it feels more imperative to support the project long term in a manner that, well, I don’t know.
I guess part of that is my ADHD brain, or whatever is going on in there too. It’s interesting to me to see people that can dedicate so much of themselves to a singular point. That’s something I worry a lot about getting into a crowdfunding campaign. I believe in myself, and I am confident in bringing my ideas alive. However, I’m not confident on pinning that to deadlines and expectations. I just wanna do things at my pace, in a manner that doesn’t overwhelm or stress me. I’ve had enough of that working in the video game industry, and in this space, I just wanna go where the wind blows me.
That walking table project I did was one of the most stressful projects I’ve done. It still stresses me out. I often wonder if I did good enough.
I didn’t specifically address you or anyone Rather tried to clarify my thinking since there was some misunderstanding.
What happens afterward is not a trivial thing. As you said, the uncertainty of it is one of the factors that stops you from going forward with a project. The designer owns the project so they are free to do whatever they want.
Some popular designers can reach their funding goal no matter what. In that case, make the model free afterward if they want.
For less known designers though, they can use every little help they can get to reach the goal. I am the bad guy here who thinks out loud that offering it free can make some potential backers feel betrayed and may not be able to reach funding goal. I don’t think this concern is unfounded. Imagine a desinger says to potential patrons something like please subcribe to my patreon so I can offer my models to all for free. I don’t believe I have seen such a patreon from 3D designers.
Interestingly, you and i are not doing the crowdfunding now, but are the ones talking about what happens afterward I wonder what the plans are for designers who are doing it now I think they have more knowledge about the program and must have put more thoughts on it, too. Their perspectives can carry more weight, so to speak.
Yep thats precisely what’s going on here. All those free models we have now? I would wager a lot of them will be pulled and turned into paid models. At this point there’s going to be no difference between here and cults3d. This is going to be bad.
All of the free models could have already been paid models and running a crowdfunded project is a very slow process that is not only limited to invited designers but is also limited on whether MakerWorld considers the project appropriate for the crowdfunding platform.
Sorry If I have missed this key point but are all the Crowdfunding projects not released free when they are done? Do you only get access to the project if you help fund it? I assumed you just get it early or some special bonus stuff? Not saying ether way is the right or wrong way just its not clear to me what the case is.
My biggest concern is when this is fully released. A lot of crowdfunding offers become available and the same thing happens what happened to the site.
It will get flooded with content, hard to navigate. When that happens getting funding will be very hard, if not impossible.
At this time there are only a few entries, and people are willing to fund them. The option is new and exciting. When released in full people have to choose from hundreds of options, it will be harder to stand out and get funding. When there are over a 1000 projects it will be the same as always, no visibility, not worth it.
I don’t want to be negative, I like the idea. I just have concerns. On top of that it is a genius move of Makerworld to keep creators on the platform and let users pay for models instead of them (with the point system).
“simple” solution would be to limit the number of projects that can be funding at the same time. This would make it more “exclusive” as well as guarantee that the problem you say won’t be happening.
Kickstarter sort of makes sense for manufactured hardware where a working prototype is only a small fraction of the work and cost of delivering a commercial product.
Tooling, assembly, and packaging and distribution can easily cost a million dollars upfront for the simplest manufactured product.
But for 3D printing projects, the prototype can be the product. There’s really not much left to pay for once an idea is demonstrated. All you’re doing is paying the designer for tweaks, or back paying them for the time they already invested.
My thoughts exactly - all those are finished models, not just ideas. This is just a step towards a paid marketplace to take over Cults imho.
What is wrong for letting people pay for our hard work?
I would not mind.
Nothing in this world is free, and if it is free you are the product.
MW will need to screen all entry applications to ensure the crowdfunding page will not be flooded with ideas for simple things such as new bag clips.
This is going to be a hot bed for scammers trying to scam the gullibles. I would suggest MW hold the pledges and release to the creators only after promises have been fulfilled. Unlike projects on Kickstarter where production costs lots of money, 3D designers don’t really need the money up front to complete the work. MW can set up some criteria on how to assess if the model and perks have been delivered, even possibly let backers vote if there is dispute.
It is possible that the best way, if not the only way, to convince potential backers is to bring an idea to near complete, like the current round of projects are doing.
Uggh. Just because something looks nice in a photo doesn’t mean it’s done or ready for prime time. It may not be entirely difficult to put a prototype together, but putting a solid finished and polished model together can be a lot of work, depending.
I don’t get why so many people think this stuff just happens and that it doesn’t take effort, skill, resources, or time. It’s frustrating how so many people in the 3d printing community seem to devalue the time of designers and the hard work they put into things. Even among fellow designers.
Right but the only barrier there is time and labour, and some filament costs. There is no $100k tooling order and $100k batch charge for 2000 machined and anodized components and $100k contract assembly fee.
Kickstarter made it possible for small time designers to get past those high capital barriers which would otherwise kill a product without external investors.
3D printed projects just don’t have an equivalent barrier to overcome. Sure it’s a grind of labour, but designers have unlimited access to their own labour if they need it. Lack of labour isn’t an insurmountable obstacle the same way that capital costs are. And showing a polished and marketable prototype requires most of the labour to be already behind you.
If you want to get paid for that labour you should sell the final result instead of prepaying for it half way through.
Yeah. I agree. But why crowdfunding rather than just opening a market place?
Right now they said that only invited creators are allowed to publish projects on MakerWorld.