The solution to your problem is in your post.

This whole INDUSTRY is an argument in favour of extreme communism tbh (I'm only half jesting). This is the most repulsive industry in the whole world. It needs looking at by all the world governments. It is is systematically and creatively exploiting its legions of customers on a daily basis and all the world's governments are just turning a blind eye. I'm a lover of games but I would nuke the games industry without a moment's hesitation.
Yes, well clearly I'm not going to take part !

I'm sorry, but you lost me there. However, let me add that insults against other forum member won't do you or your arguments much good.

Well, that's what I am trying to tell you. When you fund a project, you are not a customer. You are a backer. This means more risks (though, in many cases, also more chances and benefits). As long as you haven't understood the fundamental difference between being a customer and being a backer, this discussion makes no sense.

That depends entirely on the agreement that we made when you lent me the money. If you gave me a private credit and agreed on payback schedule, then, sure, I owe you that money. If you invested in my project in return for a share of the profits, because you thought it might take off, but it happened to fail, I don't owe you anything because there are no profits to be shared. Except possibly an apology that I wasted your money. If you give me money because you like my project, and I promised you nothing except a copy of the product if it gets finished, then I also owe you nothing because that's the agreement that was made.

Again, backers aren't customers. As long as you continue to misunderstand this, you will continue to make these rather ridiculous statements about how things "should" work from your perspective.

As explained already, this wouldn't work. People who could afford such refunds don't need to ask for external funding. People whose projects are risk-free will probably get professional funding or take up a bank credit and won't ask for crowdfunding either. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your economic background is, but your vision of how crowdfunding should work would simply lead to an empty platform where no one would risk asking for funding.

Such distorted, selfish, self-serving "reasoning" :

What exactly is the difference between a backer and a customer ? There is no difference whatsoever, though I'm sure you're about to outline the difference for me - unconvincingly.

You're opinions about lending are those of a criminal mind. You're just trying to find justifications for your corrupt thinking : "legal loopholes". If I lend you money, you owe it me back, simple as that.

Your thinking is psychopathic. You should get on well with JMich because he's another one who spouts the kind of clever-clever bullshit you're coming out with.






(He's now going to tell me the "legal" difference between a "backer" and a "customer". He'll be clued up on all this bullshit).

It is pretty obvious you already had a strong opinion about this, I don't see your questions as "naive" at all.

Also, there's no need to disrespect Psyringe.

wtf?

EDIT: For what it's worth, people who start Kickstarter projects are legally obligated to deliver. From the FAQ: But good luck trying to get your money back from a broke developer. Even if you're successful in a lawsuit, the only thing you would accomplish is to destroy another person's life. For what, 30$?

A "backer" is exactly that - it's a betting term. Remember what happened to all those hedgefund backers though?
A "customer" is someone who directly pays for an available product.
A "client" however, is someone who may have directly contracted the work.

Edit: though in the conext of kickstarters terminology, Fesin would be right with "backer".

Using discretion simply means switching your brain on. You don't have to know anything about developers you just have to look at what is being offered, what stage the development is, and whether the devs are being realistic with their goals.

Really, it sounds like kickstarter isn't for you. The nature of investing in/purchasing something that does not yet exist inherently involves risks. If you aren't willing to take those risks, wait til the game comes out and buy it.

Expecting a money back guarantee on an investment is too much to ask, even in a decent world :)

edit:

wow - Just read your other posts. Insulting people who are trying to explain things to you (which you clearly fail to understand)… nice...

I'm sorry, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I cannot see how my reasoning would be "selfish" or "self-serving" since I myself aren't even involved, I'm neither a developer nor currently a backer. I was simply trying to explain how crowdfunding works since you seemed to be interested in understanding it, though that may have been a misperception on my part (apologies if I misunderstood your purpose for this thread).

Well, I already answered that in my previous posts, and I think by now you've made it sufficiently clear that further attempts to explain the difference would be futile. I'd rather not waste my time.

Well, I certainly see nothing corrupt in stating that people are free to exchange money on their own terms, and that these agreed-upon terms are the ones by which they should be bound. Which is what I said. If you're focusing on _lending_ money, then yes, I would owe you back, but that's irrelevant for the topic at hand since you're not lending money in Kickstarter, you're funding a project. If can only accept lending money instead of funding, then crowdfunding won't have anything to offer you, because developers who can afford the liabilities of borrowing money typically don't need to ask for crowdfunding.

I would appreciate actual counter-arguments instead of ad hominem attacks, but it seems I'll be disappointed. Well. What exactly is your purpose in flinging insults around, is there anything worthwhile that you are trying to accomplish with that?

At this point, I'm not sure if you are genuinely interested in answers or just trolling. In any case, the answers to your questions are already in this thread. If you _are_ genuinely interested in crowdfunding, then look up a project that piques your interest, do some research about it and about the team behind it, and feel free to ask the community here for their opinions about it. There are ways to gauge whether a project is serious and has a chance of being successful - as you can see in the replies above, many people have been able to make these decisions in a way that prevented them from burning money. I'm sure you'll get some tips and useful assessments. But backing a project will never be risk-free.

I'm generally in favor of regulation, but I think in this case the pre-existing rules about fraud cover the things that are likely to come up.

Unfortunately, because it's an open platform, there's no guarantee that the people will be competent to take the product to completion. IMHO, it depends whether you're talking about somebody like Al Lowe, versus somebody that's a complete unknown and a matter of scope. The larger the scope, the more experience dealing with this sort of thing they'd better have.

I mean, I want to be fair, Kickstarter's current policy of "you're legally entitled to a refund, but you're not getting a refund" is open to criticism. But "psychopathic?"

I backed Haunts, which might be the first video game Kickstarter to fund, then fail. Lost my money, but kept my equanimity.

The only dishonest person here is Theo, pretending like he wanted answers to questions when he just wanted to come rant. He obviously doesn't understand how funding works or what a customer is, so leave him is own delusional world.

Psyringe, you are way more patient than I am. :)

Not sure, I backed Codehero a couple years ago and apart from updates from time to time, it's hard to say if it's already failed. But I don't think anybody really knows for sure. And the demo has been updated a couple times in the last year, so who knows.

My original questions were about Kickstarter and whether or not backers (or customers ??) of Kickstarter projects would be certain to get their money back should a project fail. Apparently there can be no such certainty and this is enough for me to say NO to backing any Kickstarter project. In my opinion there ought to be certainty - backed by law - that the customer / backer WILL get his money back if the project fails, whether that be because it didn't reach its funding target or because it did so and still failed to be see the light of day (i.e. the game failed to be made). In addition, it should NOT be left up to the backer / customer to uncover whether or not the project starter/game creator is legitimate or not. The customer should not have to do this at all : the onus should not be on the customer. The law should protect the customer / backer (what was the distinction again ?) from this kind of blatant ploy to exploit him.

You gave me very satisfactory answers to begin with and in a friendly manner too, so I can't complain on that score. But then you started trying to justify these business practices with quibbling language, for instance trying to draw a distinction between a backer and a customer. I respect your nous (your "clued-upness") but I don't like your opinions at all.