Beloved devs, why Krafton, but not Tencent?

General
61

Then that’s kinda a problem, right? :stuck_out_tongue: Because the statement of 1.0 is ‘released’. So ‘basics done’. It now has full basic functionality and everything promised is delivered!

Which obviously is not the case… and we can start the whole circus of mentioning the points but I’ll spare us this time, for everyone interested… I made around 5 posts listening those things by now, if not more. Starting from outright missing content to acceptable balance ranges.

I choose option 3:
Do not screw up your management of a project.
Take responsibility for screwing up the project.

They got nearly 100 mil, right? Do we as people backing them (be it kickstarter or EA in this case) have any promise that the original statements will be adhered to? No functional paid microtransactions ever?
Because that’s kinda a huge aspect of the kickstarter promise, isn’t it? The whole monetization aspect?
The exact same thing which ‘The Bazaar’ got into hell’s kitchen for?

So if that much money was given… shouldn’t it be their responsibility to remunerate the people which backed them and their promises and hence paying out refunds for those specific individuals?
I would say ‘yeah, that’s kinda right’.

Because let’s compare it to my job, carpentry:
I take a order for a massive gaming table, hard top, foldable, inside a properly fleeced billard table. Inset option for making it a tabletop table, storagable underneath.
All costs… let’s say 30000€ (would need to check but it comes relatively close to the effort invested, time needed and materials).
Now… I deliver it to you with the billard, the top, the folding mechanism is a different then promised but does the same… right? And for the tabeltop inlay? That’ll come later! Sometime!
You already paid. Should you get the money back with the ability to not have the table?

In my country I would have to pay them a reparation fee on top of that actually.
And if I say ‘nah, I’m not making it anymore, but I’ll let those guys there take over!’ you’ll likely say ‘but I ordered it from you and not those guys, didn’t I?’.

PvP is a given, the PvP modes weren’t funded :slight_smile:

Devil’s in the details. As always.

So nah there as well.

So, they could deliver that and force you to pay for every singular in-game action like ‘Entropia Universe’ for example and the obligation is fulfilled?

That’s baffling if that is your actual stance. Apallingly naive and dangerous even. At least think about the situations. I mention the things I say not without reason. There’s some faults in my thought processes for sure, and be free to point them out… but that one is a major blunder.
Scam galore easily given the option.
‘Oh yes, we promised the world! But since our first paragraph is the broadest of the broadest limitations you got what we offered… ignore everything else we detailed! That has no meaning!’

Exactly, last revamped 7th October 2020, brought into action in November 2021 to standardize the practices.

Regulation - 2020/1503 - EN - EUR-Lex ← Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 October 2020 on European crowdfunding service providers for business, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 and Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (Text with EEA relevance)

(Btw… what a name!)

Though those are related to investment based crowdfunding. Not ‘Reward based crowdfunding’ legally. Those are mentioned as much as I could see but generally are not covered there.

Hence I dug a little deeper:

Here is a legal breakdown related to ‘Reward based crowdfunding’ in the EU, which states:

  1. As will be argued below, a reward-based crowdfunding project will often
    qualify as a bundle of various distance consumer sales or services contracts, since
    the crowdfunding initiators are generally small businesses or non-profit organizations of all sizes (‘traders’), the crowd typically consists of customers (‘consumers’),
    and where the traders offer rewards (consumer goods or services) through the
    internet to the consumers in return for money (the price).

So no, you’re sadly wrong. But the breakdown is the following:

Under Chapter 4.1 Article 16 it relates directly to the CRD (Consumer Rights Directive) which comes into play henceforth. In Article 17 it explains that it in principle is a ‘distance consumer sales or services contract’.
Hence no investment. Taking it as investment is factually wrong.

It’s from 2020 and since then regulations have become more stringent for those types even, not more lenient.

Fair!
That’s a good argument!
Yes I accept that.

Pre-release though, right?

Hence post 1.0.

The road to 1.0 is supposed to be ‘we provide kickstarter promises’ as then with 1.0 you can legally make a road forward.
That has been foregone though. A fault from EHG plainly spoken, once more project organization issues. Nitpicky but nowadays important to mention sadly.

Still, 1.0 should’ve been ‘all kickstarters are happily on a rainbow riding a unicorn now’ before it can go to shit beyond.
We got not even remotely anything of that kind though :stuck_out_tongue:

Fair as well.
Meant it more in the direction of ‘Now you have AC inside, formerly you didn’t’ which has no negative repercussions at all. Well… besides possible upkeep, which is not relevant if you don’t use it, so you don’t care and it can break down.

Actually is, checked up on it.

Nope, you’re literally buying a product by EU law, linked it.

1 Like
62

From the sale to Krafton? Do I need to tell you were that cash went (or presumably the majority)?

Your kickstarter & EA supporter packs included shares in EHG didn’t they? No? Well, I guess there’s your answer…

Let me know how the legal action against EHG goes, I’m genuinely curious to see how that would pan out if it were tested in court (seriously).

Awesome! How does that apply to the post-Brexit UK?

63

Plainly spoken it’s interesting to see if it happens, especially with all the other ongoing things for consumer protection.

It doesn’t since it’s the UK, they screwed themselves. The EU is besides the US the biggest western market though, and that makes the laws there a world-wide mandatory aspect to follow when handling basically wide-scale international products.

64

Yes. Which it is.

Yes. Which they are.

Yes. Which it has.

No, this just isn’t true.

There are plenty of games that release with basic functionality with the promise of expanding the content later as they go.
Especially in the indie genre, plenty of games are “released” before being finished, as long as they have the basic functionality ready.

That was not an option. Taking responsibility for screwing it up would be the same as just declaring bankrupcy and we not getting the game.
There really were only 2, which was deliver as was or sink under.

Yes. Judd’s statements.

I’m gonna stop you right there. As usual you’re mixing things up.
There are 3 different things which you constantly conflate with being the same thing:
-Products: These are material things you can buy. To get these, you always pay first before having possession of it.
-Services: These are immaterial things you contract. You usually only pay at the end of the service being provided.
-Investments/startups: These are ideas which you are trying to make come true. You pay at the start and things may or may not go as you wish them to.

If you take an order for a gaming table, you’re paying for a service from a carpenter. This is not the same thing as kickstarter.
A carpenter is there to take orders from his clients and get paid for it.
In kickstarter the “carpenter” is the one making the order and you pay for something like that to happen.

Just because you use money with them all doesn’t mean that everything is the same. It isn’t. There are different laws for each and there are different expectations for each.

Why is PvP a given? Plenty of games in the genre don’t have it.
PvP was one of the goals, it failed to be met. So there’s no obligation to have it.

They could.
Much like, I don’t know if you noticed, but their proposal said the game would be free until level 20, at which point you could pay $15 and unlock the full game.
Not only do we not have a free game until level 20, the base game costs $30.

And yet, the game still delivers its premise.

I know you’re a stickler for rules and laws, but the details in kickstarter aren’t fixed objectives. They’re guidelines.
If you read them as fixed objectives that are immutable, I’d advise you to stay away from kickstarter from now on.

Sadly, both of your examples don’t apply. You see, those are for crowdfunding projects in the EU. Kickstarter is not in the EU, though, nor is EHG. So those laws don’t apply.

65

I’m not entirely sure, I thought Parliament passed a law pushing all the pre-existing EU law into UK law (possibly temporarily) but that might not have included this.

66

Not quite.
You’re paying for a product - The table.
You’re also paying for a service - the specific carpenter.

So a combined good/service contract basically.

A ‘reward based kickstarter’ is basically the same, at least in our case here it is.
You got the good - the game.
You got the people making it - the project owners of the kickstarter.

But yes, expectations are different.
I’m arguing since the beginning about the bit of ‘Should they be?’ Partially ‘yes’… majorly ‘no’ I think though. Customers of the gaming industry are used to being screwed over… in all directions… at once.

Because it’s stated in the kickstarter?
That’s why? :stuck_out_tongue:

And that’s where you’re factually wrong.

Since - as stated above - the law related to kickstarters is that it’s a ‘distance consumer sale or service contract’.
In our case ‘both’ actually.
The sale is the product.

The conditions of the product are:
All the inclusions inside the Kickstarter. It’s literally legally the same as a product advertisment. ‘Order this now!’ with the conditions on it what it entails. So the things written there are actually legally binding. It’s the same as a storefront. A amazon page and so on.

That means legally actually they got to adhere to that until 1.0 - which wasn’t done - and then substantial changes can happen.
Just because it’s not done and also not enforced doesn’t mean there’s legal basis for it to be mandated. As said… just not done. Where there’s nobody claiming officially that they got screwed over there’s no executive measures taken after all.
That’s the saving grace for the sector, people really really don’t wanna bother with that stuff when it’s related to entertainment because they try to take their mind off the other things during that time.

Which actually is wrong.

It is a contractual obligation.
A so called ‘Creator-Backer contract’ in this case. Even Kickstarter itself mentions that even, rightfully so.
They are the platform which allows those contracts to be formed but are not responsible for upholding the contract between creator and backer… that’s their respective obligations, with however they might look like.

Oh, I never look at kickstarter personally.
I know how badly regulated it still is. The EU is highly led by germany, and for germany the internet itself is ‘a new avenue’ still… that’s their speed :stuck_out_tongue:
There’s never been clear-cut regulations and laws directly attached to it created yet, the EU simply went with the premise that it’s a basic goods/service contract. Which… obviously shouldn’t be the case either, it looses the necessary nuance.
Because yeah, rigidity in the production process can cause changes, but for that proper guidelines on ‘if’ and ‘how much’ remunerations to the respective backers should be have to be implemented, that’s not done - yet.

So for the time being it’s not enforced commonly - with exceptions - but the legally binding aspect is that before the product exists or even is proven to be a working concept the creator offers a product already.

Oh, it absolutely does apply!
Otherwise Kickstarter would not be allowed to take money from international backers. Kickstarter charges a 5% platform fee. That means if a EU citizen pays a creator then they need to have the right to make business in that country and hence adhere to the respective laws.
Otherwise they’re not allowed to offer their services in those areas.

The same goes for the creator, it is actually their legal obligation to limit the influx in their personally possible range of action.
Once more… often not done… but still a thing that can be enforced.

A good exmaple for this taking action is the gambling limitation in my country. As a citizen in my country only licensed casinos are allowed to offer services to me. A internet casino can adhere to that or not… but if I go and play there online, loose… let’s say 10000€ and then go to the consumer protection services then those casinos are forced to refund that money legally. Yes, also US ones.

This counts for every country which has exchange with the EU happening. It can not be returned obviously from those which don’t, no legal standing for it. But the US has legal standing.

Could be, I’m not up to date with laws related to the UK. I get some glimpses through people which life there and have contact with me through some means… but I never went in-depth.

But definitely interesting to look at that, might be something I’ll go for along the line to check out.

67

Not quite. The product doesn’t exist yet. So you’re paying for a service to create a product. Which you then own. But what you paid for were the materials and work hours, not the product itself.

Î know you are, but I don’t agree with you. If a game is in EA, then yeah, I agree with you. If you use a crowdfunding platform, then no. Different business models, different expectations.

The kickstarter states all the possible things that can come out of it. As long as they meet the goals. Since PvP was part of the goals and the goals for that weren’t met, they have no obligation to add it. Just like they have no obligation to add the Lore Journal. Or even Character Customization.

That’s how kickstarter works. You define your goals, but if you don’t get enough money to back them up, you don’t have to do them.

On a more extreme case, if they failed to even get the first goal cleared, they wouldn’t even have to do the game (in which case donations would be refunded).

It’s not though. That’s why there are goals to reach.
First tier: you get the game.
Second tier: you get the game with controller support.
Third tier: you get the game with controller support and Lore Jounal.
Fourth tier: you get the game with controller support, Lore Journal and PvP modes.
Fifth tier: you get the game with controller support, Lore journal, PvP modes and Character customization.

It’s like buying a car. You can pay for a bunch of extras or you can get the base product. The community, as a whole, paid for the base game + controller support. They didn’t pay enough for PvP modes.

Exactly. In that country and respective laws. EHG is based in the US, so US laws apply. You’re basically investing in a US business, so US law applies, not EU one.

If you decide to invest into an US company and get duped, it’s the US courts that will settle it, not EU ones.

68

It’s both, not either/or.

You get the product (the game) and you get the service (the development).
It’s a combined one.
Most contracts are in one way or another nowadays combined goods&services contracts.

Carpenter example again: The table is not created yet, but you pay for the table. And my services. It’s both. It doesn’t work when I just work but never give you the good… and it doesn’t work when I don’t work at all :stuck_out_tongue:

Yeah, which is alright, the question is always: Where is the line?

After all, if that is the case… when is it acceptable to simply say ‘I’ve fulfilled my obligations, goodbye!’ and be gone.

Do they have to start the process?
Do they have solely to provide what is mentioned in the reward-type part?
Is the creator page content itself to be adherred to? And if so, how much?

It’s as mentioned… all not legally defined, it’s currently stringent and under the law of goods/services in the EU, which are very specific.

As from the ‘what it should be’ standpoint?
Obviously the creator has to do the thing they get money for. If it’s for meds? They have to get the meds and not take a holiday. If it’s a investment? They obviously have to start up the company invested in. If it’s a product? They obviously have to start creating the product. Same with services, providing the service.

That’s the basis for now.
So… when can they ‘pull out’?
Started it?
Partially fulfilled?
Completely finished to the dot?

Because let’s be clear here: You would also have a problem if a kickstarter is ‘no obligations at all’, wouldn’t you?
‘I want 10000 for this project’ → ‘project goal fulfilled’ → ‘Thanks for the money, bye!’

There got to be baselines, there got to be limits, there got to be oversight and regulations included. We’re not in economical wild-wild west situations and shouldn’t ever be.

As for ‘expectations’… of whom? Customer? Creator? Which baseline of expectation is to be adhered to? Is it a vote? Is it a unspoken rule? Is it based upon something?

It is a economical exchange between funds and goods, hence it needs to have the risks evenly distributed. You can’t have all risk on the side of the customer and none at the side of the creator. You also cannot have all risks at the side of the creator and none at the customer side. But this needs to be clear-cut, unlike it still is.
Why still? Because there’s no proper precedent of someone claiming a problem and the funds and time being available to go through the whole legal process.

Ok.
Then let’s see what the goals actually are:
210k base goal.
Extra options:
240k controller support funded.
270k and beyond non-funded.
So no lore-journal
No PvP modes (doesn’t include base PvP)
No char customization.

What is the base stuff promised
The summary is the type of game. Loot-based ARPG, time-travel, char customization (skills, passives, items), crafting, deep item system.
Vague so arguable what exactly the scale is, but ‘achieved’ obviously as a basis.

‘Featuring’ part:
Obviously has to be included, as that’s the direct sales pitch.
That’s not even up for discussion if or how much, what’s featured is to be provided, a given.
We can talk about a ‘possible directions’ or ‘long-term goals’ and so on. But featured is very very clear-cut. You get this is another term for it.

This includes:

  • Massive end-game content and replayability, trading, PvP, Cycles(seasons), Ladders, and Achievements

Whooops! PvP! Here we go!

  • Epic storytelling, memorable characters and environments, voice acting, journals, and hidden secrets

I mean… vague. I don’t really think the characters are memorable, the voice acting is barebones, journals are a Featured aspect, and yes… we see some journals of some characters with tidbits, so ‘provided’. Hidden secrets is really really really barebones. Ya know, the small room in Act 2 for example? It’s ‘hidden’! It’s ‘a secret!’ :stuck_out_tongue:

We can already start with ‘expectations’ here again if you want, which would make those automatically fail.

Pillars of design:
Obviously also there! They’re the core, the basis, that’s what it builds on! The foundation of existence for Last Epoch.

Also provided!
Sure, we can argue about the ‘Player Choice’ part with the aspect of out of the box thinking… but besides that yes… yes… provided!

Then we get into more murky territory:
Story:
Yeah, the outline obviously has to be adherred to, details change.
Gameplay:
Outline again besides the mentioned aspects. That’s acceptable.
Items:
Also the outlines. The details of those can change.
Whoops! not even the headlines are followed though. We can argue about the details in those contents… but not following the headlines? Big oof.
Specifically ‘Lost Memories’ in that case.
End-game Systems:
Also a big whoops in there as those things are not adhered to! Gates of Memorium? What’s that? :stuck_out_tongue:
Epoch’s Call? :stuck_out_tongue:
Multiplayer:
Also not! PvP?
We can argue ‘Pay model’ is significant enough to not change until 1.0. Hence… 14,99? That alone is messed up to change. Future proof your choices ffs! Freemium? Well, arguable can be removed as no investment was made… but still sucks a bit, doesn’t it?
Cosmetics:
Here’s the major crux and issue for the future the page specifically states:
The only form of real money microtransactions Last Epoch will ever have are cosmetic

This wording is legally binding actually.
We can argue about anything else freely.
But this… this is a permanent guarantee which is actually in the EU contractually binding.
There is precedent for it too in other kickstarters, unless EHG wants to move out of the EU for business.
If this is ever changed then it’s reason for a refund, it is the identical situation as ‘The Bazaar’ had and had to backpedal on specifically because of it.

You define the base goals and then the stretchgoals.
Those are distinct from each other

Hence prject starts with base goal met, hence obligation to provide mentioned core aspects and then the stretchgoals beyond.

You can’t go ‘Oh, but we ran out of money and can’t provide the stretchgoals! We need more!’
That is called mismanagement and hence a responsibility of the developer, reason for remuneration to the backers
And yes, worst-case bancrupty call. At which point the funds to remunerate them are not available. But that is important to follow up on
Why?
Because bancrupty states that you aren’t allowed to use any crowdfunding service with EU-interaction anymore. It’s a customer protection aspect to be adherred to.

EHG used a loophole as the project itself is not bancrupt and they weaseled out of the bacnrupty by giving away the responsibility.

Base-goals
Stretchgoals.

Yep, as said. Read out what the basis is and what the strechgoals are, very clear-cut explanations given in the kickstarter.

Wrong :slight_smile:
The laws of the place of business are adhered to.
If you sell in the EU you adhere to EU law, period.

That is a factually wrong understanding from your side about the law.
If I have a company in the EU and I wanna sell to the US I have to adhere to regulations and laws in the US. I cannot sell kindereggs into the US because they’re forbidden there by law.
The same applies here. Unless EU laws are upheld they are not allowed to do business with EU citizens.

That’s basics.

Yes, but we’re not doing investment. You’re factually still wrong about investment versus goods/services.
Don’t skim the posts, that aspect is not up for discussion anymore after I provided the legal proof of it. Unless you find an exception for it. Legally.

69

If that were the case then any purchase of a thing from the manufacturer would be a combined contract which just feels wrong. If I buy aforementioned gaming table from the carpenter, I may not care whether he builds it or he buys it from someone else & then resells it to me (I was going to use buying a brand new car as an example, but they tend to have a manufacturing organisation & a sales & marketing organisation, especially if you’re in a different country).

This feels wrong as well, if you have a list of stuff that “we’ll do if we can afford it” (ie, if the kickstarter reaches the required amount of funding), but they don’t reach said amount of funding, why would the kickstarter be legally required to provide the un-reached/un-funded things? Just like if someone’s doing a kickstarter for a thing but doesn’t reach the target so can’t afford to make it, they shouldn’t be legally bound to provide the thing. Though as I understand it, if the base target doesn’t get funded they cash gets returned to the people so that’s a bit different.

1 Like
70

Not quite.

If I go into an IKEA and buy a pre-made table then it’s solely a transaction of goods.
If I order a custom color it can be a service… or already pre-fab and hence still only goods.
If I ask them to transport it or install them it’s a service+goods combination contract.

Contract law is rather clear but also a bit hard to wrap the head around.

Which is up to you to decide to enforce that specific aspect then. Just because a law is broken doesn’t mean it’s also enforced. Without someone claiming they have been wronged there’s executive following after all.
And for good reason too, because what is deemed important by one might not be by another, and the law can’t ever catch the intricacies of human interaction properly without becoming so convoluted that the people supposed to uphold it would’ve no way to know what is allowed or not.

Which is not how the law sees it.
A kickstarter is we’ll be able to do it if we get xyz amount.
So if you get said amount you’re now lawfully obligated to provide. You entered a binding contract.

And that’s mandatory actually, otherwise you could just walk away and do nothing.

If they don’t reach the amount there is no obligation as all pledges are paid back anyway. That’s the foundation of crowdfunding. The creators only see money when it succeeds… a cent short? Bye bye funds, try again.

71

Stretch goals do not get paid back by Kickstarter. The initial goal is the only thing that matters in terms of Kickstarter reimbursement. Stretch goals are just marketing promises with the intent to secure more funding than the initial goal once that goal has been met.

Since the stretch goal in question was not met, they are under no obligation to deliver it (and, frankly, the enforcement mechanism for even met goals, is probably not really in place).

Likewise, in the case of digital games, you are purchasing a license for a service/product, not the actual product itself. It’s why Steam’s allowed to delete your library if you break their terms of service because they are just revoking your licenses, rather than removing your property.

72

Stretch goal was met, base ones weren’t.

And enforcement for goals is in place under basic goods/service exchange in the EU at least.
A indefinite license in the EU is protected under the law for goods. For the gray areas there (live-service and overall preservation of the product behind the license) ‘Stop Killing Games’ has gained massive traction and is likely to go into legislation in the next 2 years.

License revoking in the EU is only allowed with distinct warranted reasons. The ToS of Blizzard for example are non-enforcible and unlawful in EU regions.

73

Not quite. You’re under obligation to deliver the met goals.

Let’s say I start a kickstarter where I say that if I get 1M I’ll give everyone a Fiat. And I have a stretch goal that says that if I get 5M, I’ll give everyone a Mercedes.
My kickstarter gets to 2M. I don’t have to give a Mercedes to anyone, only Fiats.

Likewise, LE only reached the first 2 goals. So Character Customization, for example, is something that they were not required to provide (though they still did). Same for the goals that weren’t met.

As for the stuff that wasn’t done, that was up to the players, really. When they said they dropped Lost Memories, players could have pressured EHG into not doing that (although that would likely derail the development process further).
In fact, it’s still something they can pressure them for.

But when EHG announced that, most backers felt it was OK and didn’t much mind it, given the circumstances.
Probably because that wasn’t an integral part of the game and thus wasn’t that important.

After all, they could have simply renamed things differently to make them fit.
They could have named the campaign side quests as Lost Memories and technically fulfilled that. Or named prophecies as “Epoch’s Call”. Or named Woven Echoes as “Gates of Memorium”. They do similar things anyway.

74

Exactly.

Also exactly. Yes.

It is necessitated for a 1.0 version and until 2020 originally. We’re a ‘slight bit behind schedule’. So by default EHG is perpetually in breach of contract already.

And yes, it should be pressured for.
The major aspect is: as a kickstarter backer, if you actually had… let’s say something to do for the whole time, you stopped following the product in 2019 - which was within the dealine area still after all - and now came back in 2025 seeing ‘the product hasn’t gotten the promised aspects in it despite it being 5 years past deadline.’
Would EHG now provide a ‘no questions asked refund’?
Big question, isn’t it?

Bears no matter plainly spoken. If the majority is outraged then the option for universal refund is given mandatorily. If people say ‘it’s fine’ then they actually legally accept a change in contract. Which is lawful.
This though has to be done on a complete individual basis with every change to adhere to full lawfulness. You can’t have the majority decide for a minority when it comes to those things as it opens up methods for organized corruption basically.

They would need to bear resemblance of what was described in the Kickstarter then. You can’t name ‘apple’ into ‘orange’ and now say the orange is actually ‘apple’.

But yes, they could’ve done a miniscule job to at least adhere to it, absolutely true! But that wasn’t done, was it? :slight_smile:

I mean… there’s a myriad of ways to behave awful without doing anything ‘wrong’ per-se, we can handle tons of them.
But there’s very clear-cut demands of the law which have to be adherred to, and yes… for a multinational company like EHG this is also a nightmare to follow properly, still needs to be done though.

75

The PvP stretch goal was not met. The goal was $300,000 USD, they got $255,378 USD. The Kickstarter page is still up.

76

The PvP stretch goal solely is based on modes and not the inherent existence of PvP.

Base PvP is in the kickstarter listed under core content.

I mentioned that already, easy to miss though, yeah.

77

I’ll concede you that point. It is, however, literally a singular word/phrase on their feature list and has no further mentions anywhere.

Personally, I’d rather they forget about it because ARPG PVP almost always turns out terrible and unbalanced. The effort is better spent elsewhere.

78

Absolutely fair! And I fully agree related to ARPG PvP. 100%!

But remember one thing here: Imagine you’re the person who backed Last Epoch Kickstarter because of the hope that it has PvP, of the hope that it turns out decent.
And then you get nothing.
Now imagine you’re the person backing it because they promised a specific mechanic, and that one sounds really cool! And it’s not in it, never came, 1.0 passed and it’s not there.
Now imagine you’re the person which is sick, knowing they got only a few years of ability left to enjoy a hobby they love, gaming. Being a absolute fanatic of looter ARPGs like diablo and they promise to release in 2020… that can be done, you got 1-2 years at least! And it comes out 2024.

Is any of those situations acceptable if you’re in them?
A single one?

It doesn’t matter what they promise, how grand… how small. If they say ‘you’ll get this, and you’ll get this at that time’ then they damn well got to work their asses off to deliver it by then or face the consequences. That’s how it’s supposed to be and nothing else.

The only reason EHG has faced zero conseuqences for utterly failing (which they did, product successful or not, they failed their kickstarter backers) is because of lenience from the backers. From sunken cost fallacy, from misguided hope.

The path to hell is paved with good intention.

79

What makes you think that the carpenter is providing a service but IKEA isn’t? Does IKEA not design & manufacture the table (as I mentioned with cars & manufacturing v sales & marketing organisations)?

80

Primarily because IKEA pre-fabs and you can choose from a variety of those things. That’s the primary way how dealings work there.

A individual carpenter makes at order. There is commonly no pre-fab available.

Goods = a thing changes ownership.
Service = someone does something for you.
Investment = you give someone money for something to get a gradual return from it with optimally profit along the line.

If I sell a table it’s pre-fab, so a sale of goods.
If someone tells me to make something it’s a service… to then have a sale of goods attached at the end.
Anything beyond ‘here you go, good luck with your thing!’ is a service. Updates? Service. Delivery? Service. Create on demand? Service. Customize? Service.

As for that specific example you set:

Is it designed at your order?
Or have they designed it without you taking any part in the process (includes ordering before one exists) and then offer it solely?

That’s the difference.
The first is a service with a goods exchange.

That’s why a car manufacturer also is no ‘service provider’ but a ‘goods provider’.
The second is solely a goods exchange, no service provided.

Otherwise there wouldn’t be tens of thousands of brand new cars unsold in basically car cemeteries. If it would be a service then no surplus would exist.
Pre-order is also not a service, customizing it is though. If a company doesn’t offer their repertoire for example in a green color… but you want one and they say ‘yeah, we’ll make it for you’ then that’s a service.
If they pick it into their portfolio from then on forward every follow-up customers only gets goods, no service contract.