Will people pledge money, knowing that the game will be equally available to everyone (i.e. they aren't getting exclusive access in return)? Maybe special bonuses (like doublefine's) will compensate? But what if they also are copyright free...?
Perhaps people paying more than the purchase price indicates that they don't mind others getting it for less? Here are the distributions (the last three aren't representative, because the number of units was limited):
$ 15 47,946
$ 30 24,636
$ 60 1,090
$ 100 11,530
$ 250 900
$ 500 148
$ 1,000 100 SOLD OUT
$ 5,000 10 SOLD OUT
$10,000 4 SOLD OUT
Or because it clearly gives power and responsibilities to the consumer. If the game sucks, I will still have paid for it. The role of the investor suddenly was forced onto me as a consumer, and I really don't want to have to do that. Going through kickstarter and reading up on each person's credentials is not worth my time, I'd rather have a third party do that (and they will only do it if they have Copyright to protect their guesses.)
Here it is.
Yes, Double Fine (and Brian Fargo with the Wasteland 2) come in with a pre-existing reputation worth millions, but while you're there, poke around on Kickstarter's other projects. I never had before, and I am astonished what is on there and has been successfully funded with no apparent name-brand power that I'm aware of. Just look at this stuff: http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/games/most-fu...
There are things that targeted $10,000 and handily blew past them.
Relevant to HN's interests as I browse through: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/meetpoint/startup-fever-...
Anyway, back to my point. I think it's time to stop theorizing about how maybe the commission model might work someday in the future maybe sorta, because it's happening now. (The fact that I never even considered browsing around on Kickstarter is itself a testament to my own subconscious bias against the idea.)