And for the sake of completeness, their original Terms of Service stipulated that if the game was not released by December 2014, the backers could get a refund after November 2015.
They then changed the TOS in February 2015 to make the completion date at the end of 2016 and refunds available 18 months after that in June of 2018.
Details... details.
Can you link to both versions of the tos? The old one and new one? I haven't looked at those.
If I'm not missing something then this has been in all the TOS:
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
I've seen a couple of posters here claim that Chris Roberts asked the backers if they wanted him to keep with the original plan or try to make a bigger scoped game when the funding rose into the stratosphere, and the backers went with bigger better game. Now I have no idea if that's true in any way. However if that's the case would that not make the first TOS null and void? Can anyone please shed some light on this?
IDK the details of what was asked and if users had to read (lol...as if many of us do) and accept the new TOS, but I assume that they did have to accept it.
By doing so, the original TOS becomes null and void.
I also don't know if anyone refused to accept the new TOS and is getting a refund next month.
A smaller detail though is why they changed the date the refund becomes available from 12 months after to 18 months. This, I also do not know the anser to.
This language in all the TOS's cannot be ignored, though:
" However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
So, this is retroactive agreement to changes due to development/production time.
Wow so much speculation that can easily be put to rest by CIG...anyone disagree?
Yes vehemently. Any time someone is tried in the court of public opinion mob mentality tends to see facts as merely spin and conspiracy.
Plus, under the law as it stands, CIG have no accountability to their funders.
Very true, the exact reason I don't fund kickstarter projects as I refuse to buy a pig in a poke. And if this or any other similar project goes belly up I have very little sympathy for those who gave away their money so unwisely.
"My Lord I want you to throw the book at that man he stole my money!!" "How?" "Well he said he'd try to create something cool if gave him some money" "Oh, well let me see the contract." "There isn't one." "What do you mean there isn't one?" "Well I donated that money in good faith, no contract was needed." "Get the fuck out of my court room before I have you sent away for being terminally stupid."
Not true- 'I'd look at the Sony case. TOS mean fuck all if they break the law.
And for the sake of completeness, their original Terms of Service stipulated that if the game was not released by December 2014, the backers could get a refund after November 2015.
They then changed the TOS in February 2015 to make the completion date at the end of 2016 and refunds available 18 months after that in June of 2018.
Details... details.
Can you link to both versions of the tos? The old one and new one? I haven't looked at those.
If I'm not missing something then this has been in all the TOS:
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
This is Kickstarter. The TOS is irrelevant; you are not an investor, you have made a donation. You have no protection.
And for the sake of completeness, their original Terms of Service stipulated that if the game was not released by December 2014, the backers could get a refund after November 2015.
They then changed the TOS in February 2015 to make the completion date at the end of 2016 and refunds available 18 months after that in June of 2018.
Details... details.
Can you link to both versions of the tos? The old one and new one? I haven't looked at those.
If I'm not missing something then this has been in all the TOS:
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
This is Kickstarter. The TOS is irrelevant; you are not an investor, you have made a donation. You have no protection.
FTC disagrees and we will have clear ruling on this soon enough or crowdfunding is done-
I've seen a couple of posters here claim that Chris Roberts asked the backers if they wanted him to keep with the original plan or try to make a bigger scoped game when the funding rose into the stratosphere, and the backers went with bigger better game. Now I have no idea if that's true in any way. However if that's the case would that not make the first TOS null and void? Can anyone please shed some light on this?
IDK the details of what was asked and if users had to read (lol...as if many of us do) and accept the new TOS, but I assume that they did have to accept it.
By doing so, the original TOS becomes null and void.
I also don't know if anyone refused to accept the new TOS and is getting a refund next month.
A smaller detail though is why they changed the date the refund becomes available from 12 months after to 18 months. This, I also do not know the anser to.
This language in all the TOS's cannot be ignored, though:
" However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
So, this is retroactive agreement to changes due to development/production time.
Not to put too fine a point on it but the basic rule of contract language interpretation is that specifics supersede generalities. The specific refund clause would override the general "no promise" statement.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Wow so much speculation that can easily be put to rest by CIG...anyone disagree?
Yes vehemently. Any time someone is tried in the court of public opinion mob mentality tends to see facts as merely spin and conspiracy.
Plus, under the law as it stands, CIG have no accountability to their funders.
Very true, the exact reason I don't fund kickstarter projects as I refuse to buy a pig in a poke. And if this or any other similar project goes belly up I have very little sympathy for those who gave away their money so unwisely.
"My Lord I want you to throw the book at that man he stole my money!!" "How?" "Well he said he'd try to create something cool if gave him some money" "Oh, well let me see the contract." "There isn't one." "What do you mean there isn't one?" "Well I donated that money in good faith, no contract was needed." "Get the fuck out of my court room before I have you sent away for being terminally stupid."
Oh, I agree. I think it's absolutely nuts the amount of money people are throwing down on stuff like ships. I agree 100% with any criticism against some of the higher tier pledge amounts; especially thousand dollar ships. This goes for all crowdfunding games.
I will, however, pledge money for some other projects (especially smaller ones like Project Gorgon). There's already a solid MMO there with a couple great developers behind it.
Btw, did you notice how all this was originally framed and remained the narrative by Derek Smart where he tried to paint them as being just like investors with the same degree of accountability (even like with having access to financial data)? I'm not sure if he was being disingenuous or really doesn't know what a backer (that has pledged) is.
And for the sake of completeness, their original Terms of Service stipulated that if the game was not released by December 2014, the backers could get a refund after November 2015.
They then changed the TOS in February 2015 to make the completion date at the end of 2016 and refunds available 18 months after that in June of 2018.
Details... details.
Can you link to both versions of the tos? The old one and new one? I haven't looked at those.
If I'm not missing something then this has been in all the TOS:
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
"Accordingly, you agree that any unearned portion of the deposit shall not be refundable until and unless RSI
has failed to deliver the pledge items and/or the Game to you within 12 months after the estimated delivery date."
Wow so much speculation that can easily be put to rest by CIG...anyone disagree?
Yes vehemently. Any time someone is tried in the court of public opinion mob mentality tends to see facts as merely spin and conspiracy.
Plus, under the law as it stands, CIG have no accountability to their funders.
Very true, the exact reason I don't fund kickstarter projects as I refuse to buy a pig in a poke. And if this or any other similar project goes belly up I have very little sympathy for those who gave away their money so unwisely.
"My Lord I want you to throw the book at that man he stole my money!!" "How?" "Well he said he'd try to create something cool if gave him some money" "Oh, well let me see the contract." "There isn't one." "What do you mean there isn't one?" "Well I donated that money in good faith, no contract was needed." "Get the fuck out of my court room before I have you sent away for being terminally stupid."
Not true- 'I'd look at the Sony case. TOS mean fuck all if they break the law.
EDIT- CIG can put this to bed right now-
No. Statute trumps TOS on products every time (and regularly does conflict with TOS clauses that are unenforceable); but in KS you are not purchasing a product or making an investment- you are making a donation.
I've seen a couple of posters here claim that Chris Roberts asked the backers if they wanted him to keep with the original plan or try to make a bigger scoped game when the funding rose into the stratosphere, and the backers went with bigger better game. Now I have no idea if that's true in any way. However if that's the case would that not make the first TOS null and void? Can anyone please shed some light on this?
IDK the details of what was asked and if users had to read (lol...as if many of us do) and accept the new TOS, but I assume that they did have to accept it.
By doing so, the original TOS becomes null and void.
I also don't know if anyone refused to accept the new TOS and is getting a refund next month.
A smaller detail though is why they changed the date the refund becomes available from 12 months after to 18 months. This, I also do not know the anser to.
This language in all the TOS's cannot be ignored, though:
" However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
So, this is retroactive agreement to changes due to development/production time.
Unless any funds after that fact were used for ANY type of non agreed to feature, like promotion. No TOS can downgrade any statue, it can go above, it can't go below. It would be up to a Federal court to rule on how binding or not that "retroactive" clause is. We can only speculate.
And for the sake of completeness, their original Terms of Service stipulated that if the game was not released by December 2014, the backers could get a refund after November 2015.
They then changed the TOS in February 2015 to make the completion date at the end of 2016 and refunds available 18 months after that in June of 2018.
Details... details.
Can you link to both versions of the tos? The old one and new one? I haven't looked at those.
If I'm not missing something then this has been in all the TOS:
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
This is Kickstarter. The TOS is irrelevant; you are not an investor, you have made a donation. You have no protection.
FTC disagrees and we will have clear ruling on this soon enough or crowdfunding is done-
What do you mean "we will have clear ruling on this soon enough or crowdfunding is done"
Exactly what I said (soon enough being relative...)
FTC already had their say on crowdfunding- They essentially gave a quick amnesty and said "tread with caution" now its time the piper is paid. THIS 100 MILLION DOLLAR behemoth will be the payment. EDIT- And there are so many eyes and ears across this project its sick...
Get ready and HAVE FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
A sad part of this problem are the supporters of Chris Roberts' who truly believe he's this genius game designer. As does Roberts himself, I'm sure. He's got this streak of meglomania that apparantly runs through his entire career. It's all about him! I think that's one reason why he and D Smart are so at odds: In many ways they are very similar.
I hesitate to accuse someone of megalomania I haven't met, my perception is this. An ideal game designer should be at least in part a dreamer. However caveat apply breaks, More often than direction of some sort needs to be applied. There are persons who are the excepsions to this but it's an extremely rare skillset and personality makeup that can do both. That is as far as I'lll speculate.
Dreamers are necessary, but they need to be constrained by someone able to manage the process.
Once you remove all checks and balances and allow a dreamer/or creative force free reign you get the following: The Star Wars prequels or all of M Night Shyamalan's films post Unbreakable/ Signs (I thought Signs was crap but some people liked it). But these example are not even analogous with the SC situation, because in these situations there was at least accountability to investors, legal obligations and financial risk to contend with. SC had none of these as a crowd-funded game.
Finally, I would not even class Chris Roberts as a dreamer. He sounds like the petulant child demanding toys his parent's can't afford and stamping his feet when they tell him "no". I want a space simulator, and a vast universe to discover, and an FPS, and deep crafting that can be played as a game in its own right, and famous voice actors, and, and, and...
Last year I talked to someone who was at the first Wing Commander design meeting. Their report on the presentation was that Roberts came in, said he'd been playing some of LucasArts WWII airplane games and wanted to do one of those, but in space. And that was it. I guess the glorious all-encompassing dreams came a bit later.
Pretty sure every single poster on this site could come up with as good a game plan.
Indeed, self-aggrandizement was another complaint I heard. Other folks on the design team would come up with an idea, or solution, and Roberts would end up claiming it as another aspect of his design genius. Since people can't complain publicly without hurting their chances for continued employment in the game industry, these things just continued to get papered over.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
And for the sake of completeness, their original Terms of Service stipulated that if the game was not released by December 2014, the backers could get a refund after November 2015.
They then changed the TOS in February 2015 to make the completion date at the end of 2016 and refunds available 18 months after that in June of 2018.
Details... details.
Can you link to both versions of the tos? The old one and new one? I haven't looked at those.
If I'm not missing something then this has been in all the TOS:
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
This is Kickstarter. The TOS is irrelevant; you are not an investor, you have made a donation. You have no protection.
FTC disagrees and we will have clear ruling on this soon enough or crowdfunding is done-
What do you mean "we will have clear ruling on this soon enough or crowdfunding is done"
Exactly what I said (soon enough being relative...)
I am intrigued and hope to be pleasantly surprised.
And for the sake of completeness, their original Terms of Service stipulated that if the game was not released by December 2014, the backers could get a refund after November 2015.
They then changed the TOS in February 2015 to make the completion date at the end of 2016 and refunds available 18 months after that in June of 2018.
Details... details.
Can you link to both versions of the tos? The old one and new one? I haven't looked at those.
If I'm not missing something then this has been in all the TOS:
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
This is Kickstarter. The TOS is irrelevant; you are not an investor, you have made a donation. You have no protection.
FTC disagrees and we will have clear ruling on this soon enough or crowdfunding is done-
WRONG
FTC doesn't disagree. What it disagrees with is if you use that money on things other than in good faith towards what you promised to produce with it. Whenever I see people cite the one case with the deck of cards I laugh -- it's not remotely related unless CIG is spending the money in things in bad faith not towards the promise.
Wow, it's almost like you have an agenda against crowdfunding that sounds an awful lot like some of the interviews (especially the one Derek Smart had a few years back on Star Citizen) where he clearly despised crowdfunding.
It's like there's a big agenda against the idea of crowdfunding
What do you mean "we will have clear ruling on this soon enough or crowdfunding is done"
Exactly what I said (soon enough being relative...)
But what do you mean by... or crowdfunding is done? It's like you're saying some collective "we" are going to bring down KS if you don't get a ruling.. is that correct?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Wow so much speculation that can easily be put to rest by CIG...anyone disagree?
Yes vehemently. Any time someone is tried in the court of public opinion mob mentality tends to see facts as merely spin and conspiracy.
Plus, under the law as it stands, CIG have no accountability to their funders.
Very true, the exact reason I don't fund kickstarter projects as I refuse to buy a pig in a poke. And if this or any other similar project goes belly up I have very little sympathy for those who gave away their money so unwisely.
"My Lord I want you to throw the book at that man he stole my money!!" "How?" "Well he said he'd try to create something cool if gave him some money" "Oh, well let me see the contract." "There isn't one." "What do you mean there isn't one?" "Well I donated that money in good faith, no contract was needed." "Get the fuck out of my court room before I have you sent away for being terminally stupid."
Not true- 'I'd look at the Sony case. TOS mean fuck all if they break the law.
EDIT- CIG can put this to bed right now-
If they could show proof of how much money was left and how much more time and cost was needed to get into alpha stage i think that would calm things down.
FTC disagrees and we will have clear ruling on this soon enough or crowdfunding is done-
What do you mean when you say "we will have clear ruling on this soon enough or crowdfunding is done" ?
Doesn't he act just like Derek Smart? Where he knows people in the FTC; he knew Google execs with the Randi Harper thing; and now Derek Smart's followers have the inside scoop on the ruling of crowdfunding by the FTC.
And for the sake of completeness, their original Terms of Service stipulated that if the game was not released by December 2014, the backers could get a refund after November 2015.
They then changed the TOS in February 2015 to make the completion date at the end of 2016 and refunds available 18 months after that in June of 2018.
Details... details.
Can you link to both versions of the tos? The old one and new one? I haven't looked at those.
If I'm not missing something then this has been in all the TOS:
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
This is Kickstarter. The TOS is irrelevant; you are not an investor, you have made a donation. You have no protection.
If they fail to deliver anything at all yes you do(extremely unlikely this scenario plays out, its just suicide at this point of funding. it crosses all kinds of thresholds). The shear scale of the overfunding versus both the original and modified terms would likely preclude a successful argument of the "unforeseen" clause . If they deliver SOMETHING even garbage it is way more murky.
What do you mean "we will have clear ruling on this soon enough or crowdfunding is done"
Exactly what I said (soon enough being relative...)
But what do you mean by... or crowdfunding is done? It's like you're saying some collective "we" are going to bring down KS if you don't get a ruling.. is that correct?
Crowdfunding is done is an opinion-
If this tanks and nothing is done about it and no books are opened nobody in their right mind will crowdfund anything again. Or they are really stupid.
EDIT- This will show we really are giving no strings gift (and fuck you if I spend it on hookers and blow) if nothing is done...Not that I have anything against hookers and blow.
OR the FTC will uphold their ruling and this time make someone accountable'
Wow so much speculation that can easily be put to rest by CIG...anyone disagree?
Yes vehemently. Any time someone is tried in the court of public opinion mob mentality tends to see facts as merely spin and conspiracy.
Plus, under the law as it stands, CIG have no accountability to their funders.
Very true, the exact reason I don't fund kickstarter projects as I refuse to buy a pig in a poke. And if this or any other similar project goes belly up I have very little sympathy for those who gave away their money so unwisely.
"My Lord I want you to throw the book at that man he stole my money!!" "How?" "Well he said he'd try to create something cool if gave him some money" "Oh, well let me see the contract." "There isn't one." "What do you mean there isn't one?" "Well I donated that money in good faith, no contract was needed." "Get the fuck out of my court room before I have you sent away for being terminally stupid."
Not true- 'I'd look at the Sony case. TOS mean fuck all if they break the law.
EDIT- CIG can put this to bed right now-
If they could show proof of how much money was left and how much more time and cost was needed to get into alpha stage i think that would calm things down.
This is a bit more reasonable than your previous stance. However, as I stated before, there's a lot more to it than 'money left'.
And for the sake of completeness, their original Terms of Service stipulated that if the game was not released by December 2014, the backers could get a refund after November 2015.
They then changed the TOS in February 2015 to make the completion date at the end of 2016 and refunds available 18 months after that in June of 2018.
Details... details.
Can you link to both versions of the tos? The old one and new one? I haven't looked at those.
If I'm not missing something then this has been in all the TOS:
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
This is Kickstarter. The TOS is irrelevant; you are not an investor, you have made a donation. You have no protection.
If they fail to deliver anything at all yes you do(extrmely unlikely this scenario plays out). The shear scale of the overfunding versus the both the original and modified terms would likely preclude a successful argument of the "unforeseen" clause . If they deliver SOMETHING even garbage it is way more murky.
Garbage isn't necessarily murky. IT could just be a terrible game, from a gameplay point of view, but still represent (from a content/tech point of view) relatively close to their funding level.
Wow so much speculation that can easily be put to rest by CIG...anyone disagree?
Yes vehemently. Any time someone is tried in the court of public opinion mob mentality tends to see facts as merely spin and conspiracy.
Plus, under the law as it stands, CIG have no accountability to their funders.
Very true, the exact reason I don't fund kickstarter projects as I refuse to buy a pig in a poke. And if this or any other similar project goes belly up I have very little sympathy for those who gave away their money so unwisely.
"My Lord I want you to throw the book at that man he stole my money!!" "How?" "Well he said he'd try to create something cool if gave him some money" "Oh, well let me see the contract." "There isn't one." "What do you mean there isn't one?" "Well I donated that money in good faith, no contract was needed." "Get the fuck out of my court room before I have you sent away for being terminally stupid."
Not true- 'I'd look at the Sony case. TOS mean fuck all if they break the law.
EDIT- CIG can put this to bed right now-
If they could show proof of how much money was left and how much more time and cost was needed to get into alpha stage i think that would calm things down.
This is a bit more reasonable than your previous stance. However, as I stated before, there's a lot more to it than 'money left'.
That is why i see there might be a problem because he will not show any proof and for the other reasons stated before they have more money and the game is late i am not here to troll it's not my thing i am just saying it how i see it.
And for the sake of completeness, their original Terms of Service stipulated that if the game was not released by December 2014, the backers could get a refund after November 2015.
They then changed the TOS in February 2015 to make the completion date at the end of 2016 and refunds available 18 months after that in June of 2018.
Details... details.
Can you link to both versions of the tos? The old one and new one? I haven't looked at those.
If I'm not missing something then this has been in all the TOS:
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
This is Kickstarter. The TOS is irrelevant; you are not an investor, you have made a donation. You have no protection.
If they fail to deliver anything at all yes you do(extrmely unlikely this scenario plays out). The shear scale of the overfunding versus the both the original and modified terms would likely preclude a successful argument of the "unforeseen" clause . If they deliver SOMETHING even garbage it is way more murky.
Garbage isn't necessarily murky. IT could just be a terrible game, from a gameplay point of view, but still represent (from a content/tech point of view) relatively close to their funding level.
I refer to meeting the bare bones of the feature set even if they don't function together(not explicitly stated I think, only implied) would satisfy legal req. past that it's up to you and your regions digital consumer products regs, which vary WIDELY
Comments
"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
If I'm not mistaken this actually kind of negates the argument on this point whether like such wording or not depending on your view of a ToS.
" However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time."
So, this is retroactive agreement to changes due to development/production time.
'I'd look at the Sony case. TOS mean fuck all if they break the law.
EDIT- CIG can put this to bed right now-
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I will, however, pledge money for some other projects (especially smaller ones like Project Gorgon). There's already a solid MMO there with a couple great developers behind it.
Btw, did you notice how all this was originally framed and remained the narrative by Derek Smart where he tried to paint them as being just like investors with the same degree of accountability (even like with having access to financial data)? I'm not sure if he was being disingenuous or really doesn't know what a backer (that has pledged) is.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"Accordingly, you agree that any unearned portion of the deposit shall not be refundable until and unless RSI has failed to deliver the pledge items and/or the Game to you within 12 months after the estimated delivery date."
FTC already had their say on crowdfunding- They essentially gave a quick amnesty and said "tread with caution" now its time the piper is paid. THIS 100 MILLION DOLLAR behemoth will be the payment.
EDIT- And there are so many eyes and ears across this project its sick...
Get ready and HAVE FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Pretty sure every single poster on this site could come up with as good a game plan.
Indeed, self-aggrandizement was another complaint I heard. Other folks on the design team would come up with an idea, or solution, and Roberts would end up claiming it as another aspect of his design genius. Since people can't complain publicly without hurting their chances for continued employment in the game industry, these things just continued to get papered over.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
FTC doesn't disagree. What it disagrees with is if you use that money on things other than in good faith towards what you promised to produce with it. Whenever I see people cite the one case with the deck of cards I laugh -- it's not remotely related unless CIG is spending the money in things in bad faith not towards the promise.
Wow, it's almost like you have an agenda against crowdfunding that sounds an awful lot like some of the interviews (especially the one Derek Smart had a few years back on Star Citizen) where he clearly despised crowdfunding.
It's like there's a big agenda against the idea of crowdfunding
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If they fail to deliver anything at all yes you do(extremely unlikely this scenario plays out, its just suicide at this point of funding. it crosses all kinds of thresholds). The shear scale of the overfunding versus both the original and modified terms would likely preclude a successful argument of the "unforeseen" clause . If they deliver SOMETHING even garbage it is way more murky.
If this tanks and nothing is done about it and no books are opened nobody in their right mind will crowdfund anything again. Or they are really stupid.
EDIT- This will show we really are giving no strings gift (and fuck you if I spend it on hookers and blow) if nothing is done...Not that I have anything against hookers and blow.
OR the FTC will uphold their ruling and this time make someone accountable'
Gifting my son a 7K car cost me an arm and a leg....