I agree with those who say that basic consumer laws should apply here to KS. If a game-project fails after 6 months because they can't program the ingame AI or the engine doesn't work and we end up with a game like Sword of the Stars 2 then that's okay - that is simply an investment gone bad - you win some and you loose some. But if KS can't guarantee that the game-designers will "do their best" to deliver the promised goods and close the loop-hole that allow the designers to take the money and run, then I will NEVER pledge anything to a KS project of any kind.

Basic consumer rights protects against scams and fraud and that should apply to KS also - if not then ANY project there is a potential scam and are hence not fit for investment.

This is why I would rather pledge my money by purchasing a finished product :D.

I will never use Kickstarter for something other than games, comics, movies/tv-shows or music, and I will never put my trust in a high level pledge unless the people behind the project are people who have something to lose from not delivering.

But which country's "basic consumer laws" should apply in the case of fraud? I am only asking since there are people from countries outside the US backing some of these projects. Remember, there's no such thing, at least to my limited knowledge, as a universal set of "basic consumer laws".

I agree with everything you said, just want to add: In the cases of Double Fine and InXile, there is the added benefit of experienced project leads. Of course, there are still things that can go wrong, but those people have gone through development cycles before, so hopefully they know how to make sure that money does not run out when they are only halfway done etc.
Of course, some people may be unhappy with the end product, but as you said, everyone knew this might happen.

PS: The OOTS kickstarter was awesome :)

edit:
I'm not a backer, but it looks like an update was posted 6h ago.

But then you don't get products such as Wasteland 2 or the "Double Fine Adventure".

Sure, Kickstarter can be exploited, but it can also be very valuable for getting better and more varied games. Grim Dawn (from the people behind Titan Quest) will soon be launched on Kickstarter, and although they would have delivered a game anyway, this initiative will hopefully give them the money needed to make an even better game. $2 million extra for more content can be the difference between a good game (that Grim Dawn surely will be anyway) and a great game.

We'll see whether we gain any valuable games out of this. For now, everything is getting the hell hyped out of it.

Besides, so many people already backed these projects so it's not like they would need my pitiful PLNs anyways Although if I had any to spare I would back them because I at least know who Fargo, Schaefer, Weisman are and can, at any time, find the relevant information on their careers and decide for myself if they deserve my money.

You are right :) I kinda shortened that part of discussion and I am sure not worried at all about failing to deliver... if at all maybe even now running out of money at some point.

And OOTS was "unusual" to say the least. Due to the ingenious marketing of Rick, there really was not much of slow going at all (expect person somewhere around the end of first week IIRC). The graph bar really makes me smile every time I look at it.

However I think if you look at the comments section there were also some people who took the thing far to seriously :D, lurking all the time on the OOTS Kickstarter page (I hope it was not you ;) )

Still that the Kickstarter server crashed at the end was hilarious.

I think that people who invested in Printrbot, a hardware project (that got funded thousand of percent over what was asked) made a good investment. It's a bet but sometimes a project looks trustworthy and is.

I put a bit of money into the Hermes Spacecraft project. I'll not get anything directly from it's entirely possible that nothing will come of it (which is probably why it's not getting much money), but it's the kind of thing I'd like to promote.

Heh. Actually I'm very bad with names, and if someone said Brian Fargo to me before the Kickstarter I would have asked "who?" Same goes for Tim Schafer, Chris Avellone and that Shadowrun guy whose name I don't even remember now. But I did grow up on LucasArts adventures, I think that Planescape: Torment is one of the best games ever and I'm certainly familiar with Brian Fargo's work and with Shadowrun.

Almost all the pledges offer some sort of reward, whether that is a physical item, a download or a service ("crash out at our place and meet the d00ds!"). If you're paying money for it, that counts as a contract under United Kingdom law and, if a credit card is used, the card company could be held liable as well.

US law is clearly going to differ, not least by state - but credit card users still have the ability to do a chargeback.

That doesn't absolve pledgers from doing basic sanity checks (e.g. is the project plausible?) but few are going to be able to identify a proficient scammer. Kickstart themselves are in the best position to prevent fraudulent use of their service, and holding them liable for scams is the best way to encourage them on that. A similar situation applies with fraudulent eBay sellers paid with Paypal via a credit card - do a chargeback on the credit card and let Paypal take the hit.

Speaking of failed Kickstarters...

There is some pretty good discussion at slashdot bout the Zioneyes Kickstarter, especially near the end:

http://ask.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0231254/ask-slashdot-at-what-point-has-a-kickstarter-project-failed#comments

Basically a major statement is again that people should realize that they are not buying anything like in a store.

There is no significant difference between the law of contract in the uk, the us or, where i practise, australia.

you are correct in that, if someone offered a reward to like "meet the d00ds" and that was not provided, then the supporter would most likely have a case, because that reward is unconditional.

However, that is a very different scenario from what we are discussing here. we are talking about a situation where a kickstarter project is in terms of "i am creating x, and if you invest, when its done, i will give you one".

the kickstarter is seeking investment in a project and, if completed, the investor will receive a product. the "if completed" part is a condition precedent to any contract. if the "if completed" part isn't satisfied, (and we are talking about in the absence of fraud, spending the money on booze and whores, etc) the condition precedent has not been satisfied and there is no obligation, in any common or civil law jurisdiction to provide the good or service offered or offer a refund. the consumer took the risk in investing in the project, and the risk didn't pay off.

credit card companies would also have no obligation to pay out, because the "purchaser" has received exactly what they bargained for.

kickstarter is very very unlikely to be held liable, they have clear and enforceable exclusion clauses which will almost certainly prevent any action from being taken against them.

also, kickstarter generally isn't comparable to ebay, because through ebay, you are buying a product that is already in existence.

nobody should invest in a kickstarter project with a belief that, if the project doesn't work out, they will have some right to a refund, from their credit card company, kickstarter or anyone else.

Pardon me, but how does this differ? The only Kickstarter condition that exists is if the project fails to reach its funding target. If it is reached, everyone's pledges are then implemented and that is when the contract starts.
So by that argument, if someone hired a builder to extend their house and he took and money and ran, there'd be no contract? Not under UK law, and I can't believe Australian law would be that lax either. If KS projects were sold as investments (with the usual warnings about value going up or down and some degree of regulatory oversight to combat real fraud), then you would have an arguable point, but aside from the "donation only" pledges (and the option to give support only when pledging) every pledge involves a product or service.
In practice, it's unlikely that a credit card company would seek to contest being held jointly liable unless the amount was significant.
Contract law in the UK places significant limits on exclusions, as does the EU generally (see section 16(1)(b) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 or setion 8 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999). Kickstarter's Terms of Use, specifically the section stating:

"You release Kickstarter, its officers, employees, agents, and successors in rights from claims, damages, and demands of every kind, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, arising out of or in any way related to such disputes and the Service."

seems very unlikely to survive challenge under such legislation. Of course, Kickstarter could not be sued directly since it has no EU presence - this is why the joint liability imposed on credit card companies becomes important.
Kickstarter act as an intermediary like eBay, for goods or services promised by a specific deadline (see builder example above). They can investigate and set pre-conditions for project initiators which pledgers cannot (i.e. KS could do credit/bankruptcy searches, require accounts for companies before allowing them to seek funding or set up a system of staged payouts according to mutually agreed milestones) and they receive funding from each successful project. So they have the ability and resources to deal with fraud, that aren't available to most backers.
Well that depends on exactly how you define "doesn't work out". If, as noted in the Slashdot discussion linked to previously, the project delivers something that fulfils its description but doesn't meet an individual's expectations, then yes it's tough for them. If a project fails for reasons genuinely out of its control but does it's best to compensate (fixing a faulty product, offering an alternative or giving a partial refund) then that's likely to be enough also.

However outright fraud (which seems to be the case for some of the projects mentioned above) is something that KS should bear some responsibility for - they can use numerous measures to prevent fraud and, as far as European law is concerned, shouldn't find their sweeping exclusions of any use.