- Nov 14, 2022
- 66
- 94
- Thread starter 7767
- Start date
Honestly well put! I've never understood how these people think that patreon or any other contribution is a binding agreement for someone to provide you a game. I'd argue it's much more like when you put a few dollars in a tip jar next to a musician or other street artist: you are saying you like what you do and hope they continue, you aren't putting them into a contract to perform for your pleasure on demand.
- Jul 28, 2022
- 40
- 157
Correction: It hasn't received the "Actual" update. Winter Wonderland in April.
Proceed to defend Komi by defeating an completely different argument, and muddying the water, absolutely not relevant to main point of criticism. Amaizing job.
What is our argument? You are repeating same mistake as in your original message. "It just a donation, pledge or a present" isn't in any way a defense against criticism we push on Komi. " Main crux is that we keep criticising the fact that he is wasting a golden oportunity on burning through good will just like YanDev. Therefore "pledge/donation" isn't a defense against the criticism we push on Komi. Because nature of the money acquisition is irrelevant to the main point.
Hey buddy, let me tell you something, there is a group of people who take non-binding money, while hiding behind 100 layers of "well akshually it is just donation or pledge, i'm sick today, tommorow is internation missing the point day, my mom bored i need to clown to her....."? Those people are called con man. The element of guarantees isn't important, the nature of a con is kind of implying that you will try to avoid binding yourself with promises and guarantees while trying to achive willing seperation of money and victim. And here is the thing, it still irrelevant, because both can be true, actual main point, and side point the fact that Komi is a accidentally becoming a con man.
Can you quote me exactly where i said that i expect "he has promised a product or finished game" please? Let me help you, you proven to us all, that you can't read and you need very clear instructions "Point me to the place, where i said, that Komisari promised to deliver either a product or finished game. While doing this exercise pay close attention to keyword you used in your accusation." I'll wait.
Ohh wait "all of you that think" you can read people minds... I see... What is your telepath Pi level mr. Bester?
Last edited:
Dev has been blueballing investors for over 3 years. Anyone defending this guy automatically looks like they’d have ulterior motives, and especially this KittyMaid has been posting several hundred times to influence perception.
This forum is not based on developers releasing their games, but community pirating them after all. It’s a shame that this whole thread got captured by these bad actors to attract more potential investors with deception in the first place rather than just allowing it to die of a natural cause like it should have a long time ago.
- Oct 20, 2019
- 69
- 371
- Oct 20, 2019
- 69
- 371
Perhaps you could explain your point for me? I admit it's quite possible that I missed some context since I didn't read any further page of comments than the 451st page (this one) as reading 450 pages of forum posts feels like a waste of time.
I will note that my post was mostly intended to support someone else who seemed to have a similar point of view to myself to provide some weight to that side of the argument since I think it has value. I also believe people may consider that point of view more seriously if it's not alone in a sea of dissent and as I view it as more optimistic viewpoint on others and the world I think it's a valuable thing when more people at least consider that point of view since I think it makes the world a better place to be positive.
I didn't directly respond to anyone (let alone you) so it arguably may be impossible to miss a point that I didn't refer to; but I can see how my reference of "these people" could make you think I intended to directly refer to a point that you made that Kantanshi was referring to. If you felt that I was referring to you directly then I apologize for the miscommunication. My reference to "these people" is more about people who think that a dev is required to put out more content when you support them and if they don't and explain it with things like 'my life got in the way and I couldn't work on the game this month,' especially when they say it for a several of months, they are a con man and intentionally dishonest and trying to take your money.
If that's not your point of view then I missed your point of view (mostly because I wasn't looking for it or intending to respond to it) but I do apologize for making you feel like I misunderstood and misrepresented your argument. Please consider my post a response to the sentiment above.
While we are on the subject (just in case you want to argue further) let me clarify my point of view:
I believe that patreon money or any other financial support provided from itch.io or subscribe star is money where you choose to support an artist from the sense of 'I like what you are doing and hope you continue to produce more stuff like this' not a 'you are now under my employ and will produce content on a regular basis'. I feel that everyone should contribute as long as you want, but no one should act like they deserve an more content because they contributed in some way. If after a while anyone feels like they don't want to support them anymore.... well.... they shouldn't do it anymore.
As to the point of feeling like they have been conned; I think it's really rude and insulting to the dev to assume that all the time the put into the game and build a community was all a 'con' just because content isn't coming out faster of the game has been stalled. I believe we are all different people and other people have issues that I don't and I have issues that others don't. For instance I might get burned out or lose motivation faster than another person (e.g. when I've worked 25 hours in a week my feeling of burned out and worked may be the same as someone else who has worked 40 hours in a week). I don't think anyone's brain feels the exact same even when subjected to the same situation. I apply belief and observation about life to how devs act and assume that even if they don't come back it probably wasn't intentional and may be something due to a personal life or mental health thing such as losing interest (but not to the point of deciding they are done, just to the point of making it difficult to sit down and work on the project) They may also get to a point where they feel like it's too much of a step to come back due to all the expectations and negative comments that they don't. I think it's unhealthy to judge them like that and question if you or anyone else would want to be judged if you got depressed or otherwise felt unable to work on a project (I know I wouldn't).
One last technical point on the matter: unless you have a contractual agreement where both the dev and you understood and agreed to produce a specific amount of content for your money I'd argue it can't really be a "con" because there was no agreement in place. Without any agreement the Dev can have a perfectly valid, honest point of view that the money is being provided in the context of what I outlined above (the 'I like what you have done hope you make more') and your point of view that they are being dishonest has no legal standing (if anything it would probably be closer to you being liable for defamation).
All that said, we are fortunately all entitled to our own points of view and until you have a contract in place it's just a point of view and no one is empirically wrong or right.
- Jan 6, 2020
- 284
- 445
- Oct 28, 2017
- 1,179
- 1,322
There is no need for contractual obligation for an action to qualify as scam. For example : I ask someone for money saying that my children are sick and I cant pay for their meds, when in fact Im childless and just wanted some extra buck for vodka today. I used someone's good will and trust against them to profit financially, I scamed them. People know this and are either coping or can't extrapolate common situations to Patreon.
Most people give money to creators as a show of appreciation, sure, but also with understanding and trust that as long as they are supported they will continue their work. I can be said hat it' plainly obv that harem guild is not being worked on therefore trust is being taken adv of , Komi is still profiting from this = scam
I would say that at this point deception is missing from this equation, after so many years without updates peps should be donating him with understaing that he most likely will not produce anything for this game. Maybe they like what the game is now and want to pay in lieu of buying the game idk, idc. If they want to burn their money who rly cares? Just dont go around with that scam is only when contract is broken shit. its retarded.
Most people give money to creators as a show of appreciation, sure, but also with understanding and trust that as long as they are supported they will continue their work. I can be said hat it' plainly obv that harem guild is not being worked on therefore trust is being taken adv of , Komi is still profiting from this = scam
I would say that at this point deception is missing from this equation, after so many years without updates peps should be donating him with understaing that he most likely will not produce anything for this game. Maybe they like what the game is now and want to pay in lieu of buying the game idk, idc. If they want to burn their money who rly cares? Just dont go around with that scam is only when contract is broken shit. its retarded.
Nailed it. What people forget is that yes, Investment word, which some trying to obsess over, can be used in case of Patreon. If you are expecting any form of return, that includes delivery of a video game, you are "investing" even if you are donating.
Add there that Komi broke multiple promises of release "this year update", it adds up to simple fact that Komi is a scammer.
It depends on how you use words, from the established definition (what you find in dictionaries) of "scam" you were not scammed, I think it would be accurate to say you were deceived (there may be a better word for it you could find in a thesaurus) and had your generosity taken advantage of. Scammed is about being deceived and defrauded; defrauded is about being illegally deceived (all that feels a bit circular to me but that's how the dictionary people decided to define it).
If, on the other hand, you are using scammed in a more colloquial sense where you have redefined it to something like "deceived into a monetary loss" then you can be right. However, by that logic you could say you define an apple as something having the properties of a banana and could therefore be correct if you refer to what we call a banana as an apple.
I believe language is just about communication and you can define words how you want. The only complication is that you then have to define how you are using that word for people who use the established definition rather than the definition that you use. If you decide not to clarify how you are defining things you will end up talking past each other.
Maybe you, should actually read beyond the dictionary and read into actual legal practice. While law and its practice is varies widely between different countries, the main point for most of the time is as simple "a benefit of a conman at expense of their victim".
In best case scenario, we should actually quote the legal documents instead of dictionaries. But again, because you started with such a highly regarded legal source, lets continue with dictionaries.
Fascinating how you accuse us that we need to read a dictionary meanwhile if i actually read dictionary there is way more definitions of de/fraud.
"To deprive of right, either by procuring something by deception or artifice, or by appropriating something wrongfully through breach of trust, or by withholding from another by indirection or device that which he has a right to claim or obtain; cheat; cozen: followed by of before the thing taken."
Notice how in my definition found on wordnik, it doesn't mention anything about illegality. It says wrongfully, doesn't mean immediately actually illegal. Have you did the most basic monicker of research? Or have you on purpose choose the definition which fit your narrative?
This is why, a lot of cons and scams, are operating in the technically legal area. I feel like a broken record at this point. That what seperate them from a simple, robber or thief. Thief takes from you without your consent. Scammer takes from you with one. And many layers of "well akshually it is technically legal" is the tactics of the scammer.
For example selling shitty overpriced trash, for 1000s% of markup. From surface glance wouldn't say it is fraud or scam in any way, because how is this exchange of goods and money is any different from you buying goods from the store? But if you look deeper it is clearly a scam, which often can continue to operate because they operate inside legal limits, it is a scam touting the law exactly at the tipping edge.
Hell a lot of modern ponzi schemes, drops the charade of the "deception" and declare straightforward that they are indeed a form of a ponzi scheme. So those ponzi schemes are not defrauding people because they don't make statements that are not true?
The scam calling, selling you overpriced reinstalls of free antiviruses, is another one, good one is not technically lying, they just taking exuberant amount of money to install a free software to your PC as a fee of service. Preying on gullible and uneducated.
And yes, perpetually funding some kind of product you are developing through donations, can be qualified as a scam. In my city we had a monorail development firm promising, and promising but operating on "willing just donations". It took 15+ years to finnaly caught them, when their luck finally run out, and they tried to pump and dump and run. But again, through all those 15 years they always reiterated that it is "just donations" no promises, we just making more green version of monorail.
So please drop this stupid "ILLEGAL" line.
Last edited: