Deleted

Like, are you trying to incite shitposting?

Edit: And of course, it's because open-source (or really anything against the status quo) is bad for big bidness (yay, capitalism).

Because A) testing to ensure your game works on linux is horrible nightmare due to fragmentation, B) user base is so small they would need to pay anywhere between 100 and 400$ per game to cover the whole split development process, C) linux graphic and processor drivers suck?

Even such big and pro-linux company as Valve that pours money spent by Windows users down the drain to develop linux versions can't manage with just 3-4 games, TF2 forums have linux users complaining about gamebreaking bugs and crashes every other update.

That's actually a nice idea, but I guess that it will be abused pretty easily. The way the industry is set up now, they could hold the ported versions hostage until you back them up.

For a publisher it would mean to make an extra convertion, which would cost as much as doing any other convertion.
Problem is Linux is such a small share of the gaming platforms that it's just not worth it as it is.
Even with funds from the people, it's still time "wasted": it is more profitable to work on patches, DLCs and sequels instead.

Things might change with Steam inside the Linux Foundation and of course with the SteamBox.
I am favourable because I think that the more competition there is the better is for end-users (mind: "competition", not "fragmentation"). Let's wait and see. :)

Large publisher's aren't concerned with "Would porting to Linux be profitable?" which is what Kickstarter would answer. They're concerned with "Would porting to Linux be MORE profitable than something else I could put the team on?" Almost always the answer is no so they don't spend time porting to Linux.
Arguments in favor of Linux could be made in terms of longer term profitability, generating good will, etc... but publishers don't seem to be the most long term thinking of companies.