It seems like the whole world enjoys being outraged by the pettiest bullshit (and indeed goes out of its way to FIND things the be outraged about) in a world full of very important concerns no one gives a shit about.
Uhhh... I think you switched the cart and the horse, there, fella.
Faster innovation, better security, new markets — the case for opening Swift (an innovative new programming language for Cocoa and Cocoa Touch [high-level APIs that make it easy to create OS X (a series of Unix-based graphical interface operating systems developed and marketed by Apple Inc.) apps (applications; computer programs that run on PC [personal computer] or mobile device) with just a few lines of code (collection of computer instructions written using some human-readable computer language, usually as text)]) might be more compelling than Apple (American multinational corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, online services, and personal computers) will admit, writes Peter Wayner (contributing editor of the InfoWorld Test Center and the author of more than 16 books on diverse topics including open source software, autonomous cars, privacy-enhanced computation, digital transactions, and steganography). "In recent years, creators of programming languages (a formal constructed language designed to communicate instructions to a machine, particularly a computer) have gone out of their way to get their code running on as many different computers as possible. This has meant open-sourcing (applying an open-source [a development model promotes a universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone] license [authorization to use intellectual property] to) their tools and doing everything they could to evangelize their work. Apple has never followed the same path as everyone else. The best course may be to open up Swift to everyone, but that doesn't mean Apple will. Nor should we assume that giving us something for free (as in beer) is in Apple's or (gasp) our best interests. The question ( linguistic expression used to make a request for information, or the request made using such an expression) of open-sourcing a language like Swift is trickier than it looks."
You COULD fund the fundseeker without going through KS, but it would be hard to do and incredibly inconvenient for both of you. The contract is this: you exchanged money for goods and services, and is no different than any other purchase you make; a store can't make you pay for something and then go put the item back on the shelf; there is an obligation to deliver. The brokerage introduces an interesting but not novel complexity: KS gets a fee for hosting the exchange, but the money goes to the vendor still.
The whole reason for an FAQ is so you don't have to answer the same question every 5 minutes. I found the answer in 15 seconds with a google search.
BTW, I'd like to know what board game company this is. That was a douche move, and I'd like to name and shame. "Sorry, I found a better way to make money of this" is not a frikkin' excuse.
I understand your frustration. But the TOS says you are entitled to a full refund from the creator, and the FAQ states that they are legally obligated to provide it to you. I hope that helps. KS is uninvolved because they have no business with the creator after the campaign ends. At that point, it's all on the creator to deliver. The FAQ suggests that you look carefully at the people behind the campaign before you decide if it's an acceptable risk; even though in the worst-case scenario you are still entitled to a refund.
If I was KS, and I was assuming legal liability for all campaigns I hosted, I'd damn well ask for copyright, trademark, and patent assignments from all campaigns, too. But that's not how it works, currently. KS is a broker for a business transaction between you and the party that established the campaign.
The TOS is clear. Your quarrel is not with KS, but with the guy that reneged on his promise to deliver. The FAQ further clarifies that the TOS to which the company agreed when they started the KS campaign imposes legal obligations on them, to you.
Don't blame KS; get a lawyer and sue the company that broke their promise.
Star Citizen had a couple things going for it:
1) It was meeting a need felt by anyone that loved Wing Commander: Privateer.
2) They didn't give monthly or weekly updates, but DAILY updates. Backers know exactly what the state of it is.
3) The Chris Roberts name was big, but not as big as #1 and #2.
Unsung Story: Tales of the Guardians is the exact opposite. It was also a speculative KS campaign with both #1 and #3 going for it; it promised to be the second coming of Final Fantasy: Tactics. Completed Funding in February with only monthly updates since then, already some backers are feeling scammed.
Update early, update often. Backers will forgive delays if they know what's going on.
Not true. From the KS TOS:
Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.
And from the FAQ:
Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?
Clearly, the AC who clicked the link to comment.
I think you accidentally a verb there.
I hope some day someone double taps you.
And this one throw-away comment turns (+1, Insightful) turns into (-1, Hypocrite).
I blew my wife's mind the other day
Did you mean to post AC? This is admissible in court, you know.