Kickstarter Won't Bend Rules For Project That Missed Goal By $28

Over the weekend, a Kickstarter for a game called Alpha Colony missed its goal of $US50,000 by $US28. Twenty-eight dollars!

By Kickstarter's rules, the project should get zero funding, but would they make an exception for a bizarrely unfortunate situation like this? I reached out to Kickstarter this morning to ask.

"That's really, really uncommon," a Kickstarter spokesman told me in an email. "It was a tough finish, but unfortunately we wouldn't bend the rules. Of course, creators can always relaunch a project that was initially unsuccessful."

Bummer. Better luck next time, Alpha Colony.


    Why wouldn't the person behind the kickstarter just get a friend or something to put an extra $50 in if it was getting close? This just seems silly.

      It was 1k off in the final minute and climbing like crazy, and someone threw in $800 in the last 10 seconds, hoping others would fill the gap. But they didn't.

      According to the interviews, they were using it as a gauge of interest as well. They didn't generate enough interest, pure and simple - they didn't want to artificially float it by using (more of) their own money.

        This is really what kickstarter is for IMO.
        Raising money is one thing, but there are other ways to raise money. The problem is, investors need to know what the market is like and what the returns are likely to be.
        Where kickstarter is useful is determining how much appeal and interest there is in a particular project.
        The number of people who back a project (and the amount of money they back with) is an indication of the larger market, be it US only or global.

          Exactly how I see it, too. :)

    The odds are overwhelming that the people behind this project had already put in a large investment into this Kickstarter themselves... there is no other reasonable explanation for it failing by only $28.

      The original article says that they've already sunk >$60,000 into it.

    stupid creators - if they were keen they could easily have chipped in $28

      like Shane said above, the creators had already invested $60,000 of their own cash into it.

        Should of invested $60,028

        Really? It sure doesn't look like there's $60,000 worth of, well, anything in this project.

        Last edited 04/12/12 11:51 am

    Yup.. didn't generate enough interest.. that's all, end of story. Yes, it's disappointing.. but it's like getting "almost" all the lotto numbers.. or getting "almost" a jackpot on the pokie machines.. or "almost" anything.. there's no prize for second place..

    I'd be devastated if I were the developer.. but that's life.

    Have to admit I'm still pretty skeptical of the whole Kickstarter business model. Some devs just appear to be taking gamer wallets to town. As already mentioned, $60,000 for this? I don't want to judge a book (or in this case, a game) by its cover, but looks like it rivals a game from about the early 90s/late 80s.

      Don't get me wrong I like kickstarting projects but compared the the WMD funding method where backers become mini investors, kickstarter really starts to feel like a begathon.

    It's kind of funny seeing the reaction to this, but then reading the developer's thoughts on it all. (

    Apparently after failing to secure $500000 previously, they dropped the funding base line to $50,000 at the expense of quality. I'm not really sure why they would willingly set the bar that low, knowing the game would not be as high quality as they wanted it. Perhaps they were going to try for alpha funding once it got off the ground.

    It's for the best. They could have acquired the last 28 if they wanted too, but were probably hoping for a lot more than 50k total, so for lack of that, were happy to let it fall.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now