Firstly, I am far from deluded believing that 600k is enough to fund the game..., far from it.., it's a miserable pitance to what is required, my point being EXACTLY what you point out..., the very difference between crowd funding and purchasing...., I "PURCHASED", the "I did it my way" to "help" fund the kickstart campaign to get over the line..., had I known that it would become worth 15% less after a few months, I wouldn't of done it, that simple, I would of waited. DU still would of got my money for my PURCHASE..., (because, once the game became fully funded, that's what it legally became, wether you choose to believe that or not is entirely up to you) and I would of saved 15% to spend on something else down the track.
Secondly, "IF" it is to provide an incentive to new backers, then make it 15% on ALL pledges, at least then ALL of us original backers would be out of pocket by the same amount....., then watch the forum light up.
I believe, if this is the tactics that are going to be employed by companies making crowd funded games, the crowd funding will dry up very, very quickly.
No, see, this is what I'm talking about, you've got it all wrong.
You pledged at the I Did it My Way support tier, and in gratitude for your help in funding the development of the game you were promised certain perks, namely a copy of the game, a couple of ships, and some other doodads. You purchased nothing. Your grasp of the legalities surrounding crowdfunding is lacking, I'm afraid. Funding of a project does not translate pledges to the status of a purchase. Purchases are a guaranteed thing, there is no guarantee even now that you will get a playable game out of your pledge. Purchases are generally returnable, there is no legal mandate for pledges to be refunded, companies that do so do it of their own volition. If the game fails to happen because the wheels fall off or they run out of money, you have no recourse whereas with a purchase you have some guarantee of result. A pledge is a donation to a cause, not a purchase.
Your entire post demonstrates that you clearly had the wrong idea about this whole thing going into it. You're talking like a shopper displeased because the vacuum cleaner they bought a week ago went on sale this week and if they'd known they'd have waited. Crowdfunding is about supporting a cause that you believe in and helping it to become a reality, not your personal benefit.
I fully agree that discounting packages before the game is even released is a slap in the face for older backers. The earlier you back the better the perks should be - end of discussion! If packages are discounted then the right thing to do would be to give the older backers the difference as store credit. Let us not travel down the same road as CIG did - we all know it leads to very dark places.
This is such a bad idea I don't even know what you were thinking when you came up with it, except, perhaps, of your own wallet.
Let's start by laying down a baseline. $600,000 is not the amount of money raised so far to develop this game. That number, or more appropriately the one on the front of this site, represents the gross number raised but does not represent several important costs. For example, it would be foolhardy to assume that everyone who backed on Kickstarter actually ended up paying for their pledge. Then when you add in Kickstarter's cut and credit card fees you really start to take a chunk out of things. And finally, there's costs for things like T-Shirts, Soundtracks, etc. that aren't represented in that number. If they're lucky a normal T-Shirt purchase nets them about 50% of the purchase price... make no mistake, merchandise is something that game companies produce as a necessity to make their fans happy.
Now, let's look at your idea. Say they give everyone $15 in store credit, the most likely purchase is going to be a t-shirt because it brings the price down 50% and brings the cost of the t-shirt into a much more comfortable range for a lot of people. Best case, if you then deduct that $15 from the $30 price, there goes most if not all of their profit on that purchase, the profit which actually funds the development of the game. Best case scenario they make $2-3 which, frankly, for all of the work that goes into shipping out a physical product for a small operation like DS isn't even worth getting out of bed. Worst case... they lose money on the purchase which does none of us any good.
Please think about the consequences of an idea before suggesting it, your wallet isn't the only consideration.
Moving slightly off-topic and on a more personal note, these nebulous claims you make trying to tie things to CIG do little to help your points and more to undermine them than you likely realize. First off, you assume that the reader is familiar with the actions of CIG. Secondly, you assume that the reader is aware of the specific action you're alluding to taken by that unrelated company. And finally, by making these assumptions and providing no context for your association makes you come off as a doomsayer, a charlatan, seeking to stir up support of his point with no substance behind it. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of having no substance behind the claim, I am pointing out to you how it comes off.
If you think you've got an example of a situation where the actions of another company are similar and wish to draw a comparison, elaborate on it, tell the story. But at the same time don't just be like "CIG did this and it's bad!" provide substance. 'Witty' two-line posts filled with buzz words are good at stirring up emotion but if you actually care, take the time to document the association and raise concerns, not accusations. Don't affirm the consequent, the fact that action A led to result B at another company is not proof that action A will lead to result B here. Definitely bring up the concern, point out that such an action had a detrimental result elsewhere, but don't state as a matter of fact that it will happen here, that's a logical fallacy.