General / Off-Topic Kickstarter fraud

[Slawkenbergius]

Nothing led me to that conclusion, that is why I backed the game. That is why they need to issue a full refund now.

Perhaps they should grant a request for a refund, but they certainly shouldn't offer one unless asked for. At any rate, I would say that they're under very little legal pressure to do so. You'd basically be looking at a private prosecution in the small claims court, which would be profoundly inconvenient unless you happen to live near Cambridge (by default cases are heard at the defendant's local County Court). Unless you want to lose a lot of money, you'd be presenting your own case, as you wouldn't be able to reclaim solicitor fees even if you win. You'd also have to pay a fee to have the case heard in the first place (probably around £25).

But if you're interested in going ahead, the best thing to do would be to seek advice from the Citizen's Advice Bureau and see what they say. Though to be honest, they probably have better things to do with their time...

 

[jamotide]

It all just depends on how much one is peeved off. After all the stalling tactics and the white knights on the forums, many people are willing to spend much more money just on principle. You have to realise that people who backed this for hundreds of pounds are people who have too much money anyway, but they still don't like to be ripped off.

 

[Hydrino]

FD are delivering a product which is a far cry from not delivering anything.

Kickstarter has "backers" not "investors".

Kickstarter says there is a risk and things can and should be expected to change between concept and delivery.

Refund topic belongs in the thread on ED forum specifically for that.

Figured this would happen with this thread...

 

[Stoo]

Baiting in the extreme I feel.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

Thing is people would be crazy to spend any money through the courts on principle, because they'd very likely lose. If I remember my learning correctly, misrepresentation only occurs if the statement is one of fact, not one of intention. The Kickstarter 'contract' clearly deals with intention rather than fact, so people would be unlikely to get any joy through going that route. Frontier would only have to show that creating an offline/DRM-free/whatever mode was their intention at the time that the statement was made.

 

[jamotide]

FD are delivering a product which is a far cry from not delivering anything.

Kickstarter has "backers" not "investors".

Kickstarter says there is a risk and things can and should be expected to change between concept and delivery.

Does not mean they can deliver an empty box called Elite. Kickstarter is not a gift without obligations.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Thing is, those people would be crazy to spend any money through the courts on principle, because they'd very likely lose. If I remember my learning correctly, misrepresentation only occurs if the statement is one of fact, not one of intention. The Kickstarter 'contract' clearly deals with intention rather than fact, so people would be unlikely to get any joy through going that route. Frontier would only have to show that creating an offline mode was their intention at the time that the statement was made.

That is why they would lose, they clearly had the intention of delivering DRM Free editions, and they can still do that now by providing server software for us to run DRM free. They choose not to, that is why they need to refund.

 

[Yaffle]

And we've had over 15,000 posts on this very circular topic, so I am going to close this as it's going the same way.

We are so far from the original topic it's now off-off topic, which is quite an achievement.