You're really going to have to explain to me how allowing consumers to decide if they want a product enough for it to be manufactured or not is anti-consumer.  

consumers buy a concept before its proven that it works well.  there is no way back after it got the funds and if the idea proves to be working badly there will be no corporate manager to say well we cant sell this.

Probably because voting means nothing when you don't have skin in the game. Its very easy to say 'yeah thats awesome build it', much harder to actually pony up the dollars at the end, putting your money where your mouth is. 

And I don't get the bit about trust, again no one is forcing their customers to participate in their crowd sourcing for employee pet projects, they are quite open about what is it, so how is customers trust being taken advantage of? 

not true for the 3 items they have up

the products they are offering now are ready for production (otherwise they wouldn't be shipped in just a few month), their market research probably indicated very low consumer interest, so they are organizing a profitable low production run with this site

btw in case of quality issues consumers have the same rights like when normally buying a product, as I said it doesn't work like kickstarter where people are stuck with a non-functional turd (or just straight out lose their money if the project falls flat after being "funded")

Crowd funding games is just wrong, not when there's a giant corporation that can easily afford to make the games for its user base. I don't work for Sony and I am not a sponsor, my hard earn cash isn't so I can help a corp think about investing and making games.

The idea on why we chose there platforms is because we trust them to supply us the games, not have the community make them instead.

Honestly would you pay Microsoft or Nintendo to help make there games? Even though they sit on billions of dollars.. No I wouldn't. Understandable if its those tiny indies developers like the ones who make 5 Nights At Freddie's or One Finger Death Punch as examples.

Its a good idea when there not sure about a game but those in this thread that support this idea only because they want to help the company then go buy shares or donate, don't force these silly ideas onto the gaming community.

In my opinion, i hope no other company follows suit especially 3rd party devs. This is not what i want gaming to become.

If that's what you believe then you're against all types of crowd funding.  You also seem to believe that there are no consumer protection laws in Japan or that Sony is not a company with a reputation to protect in a country that is very serious about responsibility.

Also, I would assume that these products passed all production critera except market feasibility.

Did you read the OP? It has nothing to do with games.

Ok... I give up.

if those were ready for production, why should sony not fund a overpriced watch?  they can make alot of money with that even if they just sell 500k ww.

You dont understand, this is obviously a tactic to see if it works, it can implement into gaming not far from now. This could possibly be the way games could be made soon, where big companies dont have to spend a dime anymore for our entertainment.