Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Twelvecarpileup wrote:
Alright, everyone who is saying "She should have known better, just google "Defiance games" or "Tony Reidy":

When the kickstarter had ended, most of the big Defiance games stuff hadn't gone down.

Obviously she didn't do due diligence and predict Defiance's actions into the future.

By her own words:

Back in June/July of last year I had my first contact with Defiance...

But in July, she should have been able to read Xeno's review written on the 27th of June, which includes the following:

 Xeno wrote:
However, the casting flaws there were . . . oh my.

For starters: the right toe of the boot on EVERY SINGLE kneeling figure was missing. That's all figures from two sets.

On many of the arms, the edge of the shoulder was missing and, given how little surface area there already is for glue bonding, that's a problem, on that would be easy to fix with green stuff, but that's barely acceptable, even to an easy-going guy like myself.

The single piece bodies had a couple of common flaws: the first is that on the one with a visible gun stock, said stock was always half cast. The end of the barrel was frequently missing (~50% of the time) on all rifles except, ironically, Mr. Half-Stock. If you needed an excuse to make these little less like AK-47s, there you go. You'll probably have to trim them all down anyway.
...
However, a number (about 25%) of the head tabs between both sets were affected by misaligned molds making the face look like it had suffered a stroke:

Others looked misaligned, like perhaps the master model had been slightly squashed during molding or just were suffering from less overtly noticeable molding issues.

If you're looking to bet your own reputation and ten thousand dollars or more of other people's money on Defiance's ability to not feth this up, don't you think stuff like that is something to be worried about?

Some of you are bananas.
Almost 700 people (120 MORE than backed Torn, albeit for less money overall) gave money DIRECTLY to Defiance well after Torn would have become involved with them.
There were fairly mild snide remarks about rolling the dice, but there was no impassioned out cry.
The Rustforge/Proxie stuff didn't emerge until a week or so after their KS closed.
It's also weird to think that Torn would start yelling about how they were involved with Defiance at that point. Defiance obviously has a huge chunk of their money and they would be working to retrieve that or get the work done before posting "OMG you guys we're involved with a company that people on the internet don't like!". Now that it's clear that Defiance are crooks it very much makes sense to 'go public' with what has been happening.

Oh, and it is very much possible to make KS creators 'pay' for failed projects: http://www.inc.com/eric-markowitz/when-kickstarter-investors-want-their-money-back.html

Hell, why not just anonymously purchase one of their kits and see for herself what she'd be getting?

 AlexHolker wrote:
Hell, why not just anonymously purchase one of their kits and see for herself what she'd be getting?

Did they have product to sell at that point
(I realise that that is not helping my case...)

 plastictrees wrote:
Some of you are bananas.
Almost 700 people (120 MORE than backed Torn, albeit for less money overall) gave money DIRECTLY to Defiance well after Torn would have become involved with them.
There were fairly mild snide remarks about rolling the dice, but there was no impassioned out cry.

To be fair, some of us made more than mild snide remarks.

After reading the DG reply to the accusations on their FB page, I reject their excuses as utter crap and blame shifting. Not that the creators of the KS are completely blameless but the onus is on DG to provide a quote in good faith for the work they were contracted to complete.

I have plenty of experience working with digital files and I can tell you I reject the defense given by DG. An upstanding company could easily identify the issues and get them resolved with minimal effort and expense, or at the minimum be able to tell the client 'exactly' what is required and provide a good faith quote for the work in a very short time.

You can open a file in some rather inexpensive software and determine if the mesh is viable for print in a matter of seconds.

I can tell the mesh creators are using Z-Brush, a popular software for organics, it will not output into STL format but you can run it through another program such as Rhino (also an inexpensive program) to convert the file format and check for naked edges while you are there.

The only other concerns are how the model has been broken up to accommodate printing and undercuts. You can further break the model up in Zbrush or Rhino. If the complaint is that the model is in too many parts, just drop it into Zbrush and have it create a new skin with the parts all placed in their proper positions, this will make a new closed mesh integrating one or more components.

If there are components that are too thin for print and reproduction, you may need to work a little more, an hour or two per file to expand the component and get it to fit the size required (thinking thin spears here)

All of this is fast, easy and not complicated if you know even the basics of these programs. If you did not know how to use these functions or do not have the software, hand it back to the client with your concerns and charge them for the amount of time examining the files and let them decide how to proceed with a reasonable quote to complete the job.

Bottom line, opening a file and identifying the issues to generate a quote, perhaps ten minutes per file on the outside. So if no substantial work was done... where did the money go?

This all seems very odd. Ultimately someone offering a product on kick starter did not fulfill there obligations. The how's and whys of their business dealings are their problem. The kick starter T&Cs are quite clear:

"Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or fulfill"

And in this case the creator not only used a know dodgy company, but seems to have paid upfront for work that really should have been done on credit terms. Not that any of the business dealings of the company matter.

 NoseGoblin wrote:
Bottom line, opening a file and identifying the issues to generate a quote, perhaps ten minutes per file on the outside. So if no substantial work was done... where did the money go?

Agreed, NoseGoblin (and you obviously know what you're talking about on this issue). The excuse by Defiance was just stalling, plain and simple.

plastictrees- Interesting article, thanks for linking to it! I guess you don't want a lawyer backing your Kickstarter if you plan to not deliver anything

Hopefully, Torn Armor can follow up with what they plan to do now- i.e., take the remaining funds, hire Rust Forge's lawyer who got Defiance to pay up in the fall, and sue Defiance Games to get the money back. Just writing it off would be the worst thing to do at this point. You wouldn't write off almost 70K of your own money if someone had swindled you out of it (not that they gave Defiance Games all of it, but it seems to have been a considerable chunk... and up front, to boot).

 AlexHolker wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Twelvecarpileup wrote:
Alright, everyone who is saying "She should have known better, just google "Defiance games" or "Tony Reidy":

When the kickstarter had ended, most of the big Defiance games stuff hadn't gone down.

Obviously she didn't do due diligence and predict Defiance's actions into the future.

By her own words:

Back in June/July of last year I had my first contact with Defiance...

But in July, she should have been able to read Xeno's review written on the 27th of June, which includes the following:

 Xeno wrote:
However, the casting flaws there were . . . oh my.

For starters: the right toe of the boot on EVERY SINGLE kneeling figure was missing. That's all figures from two sets.

On many of the arms, the edge of the shoulder was missing and, given how little surface area there already is for glue bonding, that's a problem, on that would be easy to fix with green stuff, but that's barely acceptable, even to an easy-going guy like myself.

The single piece bodies had a couple of common flaws: the first is that on the one with a visible gun stock, said stock was always half cast. The end of the barrel was frequently missing (~50% of the time) on all rifles except, ironically, Mr. Half-Stock. If you needed an excuse to make these little less like AK-47s, there you go. You'll probably have to trim them all down anyway.
...
However, a number (about 25%) of the head tabs between both sets were affected by misaligned molds making the face look like it had suffered a stroke:

Others looked misaligned, like perhaps the master model had been slightly squashed during molding or just were suffering from less overtly noticeable molding issues.

If you're looking to bet your own reputation and ten thousand dollars or more of other people's money on Defiance's ability to not feth this up, don't you think stuff like that is something to be worried about?

That's a hard sell for me... her due diligence, was coming on this specific board, to see a single review of a product on the 52nd page of a thread?

I know we're all on this board, but the vast... vast majority of people do not browse this board.

 Twelvecarpileup wrote:
That's a hard sell for me... her due diligence, was coming on this specific board, to see a single review of a product on the 52nd page of a thread?

The same review was posted on Defiance Games' own forum.

It was? They did? Who thought that was a good idea?

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
It was? They did? Who thought that was a good idea?

The tone was actually pretty positive, although you could tell that Xenos was straining to get there at that point.

Defiance Games just posted this on their FB page...(edited for clarity)

Defiance Games wrote:...we are compiling a record of events that shows what actually happened with the Torn Kickstarter and why we are now the scapegoats for this project that could never have been completed given the financials. We are reviewing this with our lawyers but will hopefully post it up tomorrow.

Where's the popcorn?

~Tim?

Looking forward to seeing how they spent any money at all doing nothing but requesting and then rejecting different file types.

I feel bad for Torn Armor and hope things are resolved justly.

Defiance Games, aside from looking like crooks so far - especially stating the project "could never have been completed" with what they were paid, but taking the money anyway(?) - , come across as remarkably unprofessional. Not only are they responding through Facebook, but the replies so far (that have been quoted in this thread) and other comments on Facebook are very childish. By their own admission nothing has been produced because Torn Armor didn't submit files in a format Defiance Games was willing to accept; that means it should be a no-brainer that Torn Armor gets its money back.

Legal action also seems a no-brainer unless Torn Armor lack the funds or wherewithal to hire an attorney. They could always do another KS for that.

You have to be a pretty big moron to take somebody's money, use it up by doing absolutely nothing and claim THEY'RE the ones at fault. Hope Defiance Games gets whatever is coming to them. Sounds like Tony belongs in jail for a long time.

 plastictrees wrote:
Looking forward to seeing how they spent any money at all doing nothing but requesting and then rejecting different file types.

This. If they were not able to use the files, then where did the money go?

 NoseGoblin wrote:
After reading the DG reply to the accusations on their FB page, I reject their excuses as utter crap and blame shifting. Not that the creators of the KS are completely blameless but the onus is on DG to provide a quote in good faith for the work they were contracted to complete.

I have plenty of experience working with digital files and I can tell you I reject the defense given by DG. An upstanding company could easily identify the issues and get them resolved with minimal effort and expense, or at the minimum be able to tell the client 'exactly' what is required and provide a good faith quote for the work in a very short time.

You can open a file in some rather inexpensive software and determine if the mesh is viable for print in a matter of seconds.

I can tell the mesh creators are using Z-Brush, a popular software for organics, it will not output into STL format but you can run it through another program such as Rhino (also an inexpensive program) to convert the file format and check for naked edges while you are there.

The only other concerns are how the model has been broken up to accommodate printing and undercuts. You can further break the model up in Zbrush or Rhino. If the complaint is that the model is in too many parts, just drop it into Zbrush and have it create a new skin with the parts all placed in their proper positions, this will make a new closed mesh integrating one or more components.

If there are components that are too thin for print and reproduction, you may need to work a little more, an hour or two per file to expand the component and get it to fit the size required (thinking thin spears here)

All of this is fast, easy and not complicated if you know even the basics of these programs. If you did not know how to use these functions or do not have the software, hand it back to the client with your concerns and charge them for the amount of time examining the files and let them decide how to proceed with a reasonable quote to complete the job.

Bottom line, opening a file and identifying the issues to generate a quote, perhaps ten minutes per file on the outside. So if no substantial work was done... where did the money go?

Glad you jumped on here to talk about this.

I work with CAD software (Unigraphics) every day, and converting between file types, while not every day, is fairly commonplace.
We've worked with small machine shops who just knew what type worked for them, and we had to figure out how to get them that type.
And a simple google search can quickly get you on the path to figuring that out.

If Defiance couldn't use the file types given, they should have been able to specify a type they could use.
There should have been no cash exchanged before they confirmed that they could work with the files.

I also have friends in the miniatures/gaming industry that have told me that much of the industry works on credit.
You commit to doing work for someone, then you get paid once the work is done.
This is evidenced by the Rust Forge and Proxy Models situation with Defiance.
They did the work in good faith, as they probably had many times in the past.

It is stunning to me that Defiance required money up front.
Even more so that Torn gave it to Defiance in advance of any work being done, regardless of their history.

And the Facebook comment about a model in too many pieces says bad things about Defiance's abilities to produce quality models.

 SickSix wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
Looking forward to seeing how they spent any money at all doing nothing but requesting and then rejecting different file types.

This. If they were not able to use the files, then where did the money go?

That's what I was thinking also. If no work was done then shouldn't this be a easy situation of returning the money?

Oh wait. I forgot. Tony probably spent it on what ever the hell he has been doing to squander every dim he gets...
O____o

Time to get a pro-Bono lawyer and start legal action!

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Defiance Games just posted this on their FB page...(edited for clarity)

Defiance Games wrote:...we are compiling a record of events that shows what actually happened with the Torn Kickstarter and why we are now the scapegoats for this project that could never have been completed given the financials. We are reviewing this with our lawyers but will hopefully post it up tomorrow.

It's official: Defiance Games is the new Foam Wars.

Maybe update your Dakka Dakka bingo card?

 Polonius wrote:
I'm not saying that they intentionally used Defiance to arrange a scapegoat, but it makes it more likley that people turn on Defiance, not Torn Armor.

If you're not saying that, what are you saying, friend? Because it looks to me that you're implying it.

This might be a little offtopic, but Mantic recently had a problem where the file format they delivered to their Chinese manufacturers was incompatible with the tooling machines.

Of course, China being China, instead of buying the file conversion software, they just got some random factory worker to trace over the files and do a quick bodge-job 3d sculpt in a format that was compatible.

Just saying, it can happen.

Yes, but this is two companies in the US, corresponding over months, and providing the file type Defiance specifically requested.

I wonder if Torn has gone silent due to being in the process of talking to a lawyer. I certainly hope that is the case.

it's actually quite easy to change a 3D file to the format you want to work with. Here's how in 5 easy steps:

1. Download Meshlab
2. import your file
3. export your file
4. ???
5. Profit!

It's not always quite that easy. There are all sorts of potential problems with 3D files.

They are uncommon though if the creator supplies the correct format as requested.

Twice.

Either Defiance Games or Torn Armour are wrong about the file formats. There should be an email trail of evidence concerning this, if anyone cares.

Sounds like that would cost about 20k

They just need to get a lawyer to help bury Defecation Games

 AlexHolker wrote:

But in July, she should have been able to read Xeno's review written on the 27th of June, which includes the following:

So a person whose admittedly not into miniatures wargaming should very specifically go to a random miniatures forum (that is a majority of Games Workshop games) and read a random post by someone? Really? You've never been in a position where you had to do something you didn't know how to do and your solution was not optimal?

I can mirror your sql database and write a custom crm to meet and exceed your needs; but if I venture into an area where I don't have expertise and my job requires that I do (say, multithreaded video editing) then I'll research what others have done - and many times I'll get to where I need to go and learn a little best practices experience; but sometimes I do things incorrectly that will necessitate a large rewrite (and a corresponding loss in labor dollars, obviously). It happens.

As of that point in time, Gary was in charge of Defiance, they were actively talking to their customers, fulfilling orders, showing off test prints, releasing new product, etc. I personally had ordered and received UAMC and Bugs. None of the Rust Forge/Proxie stuff had happened. You then have someone not too experienced with miniatures companies get suggested to go to Defiance - and from what Torn Armor indicated, the beginnings were just fine. I can easily imagine they took a turn for the worse when Gary etc left and Tony had to start paying Rust Forge and Proxie back (and probably bought a new Land Rover).

By the same token, both Rust Forge and Proxie were producing and shipping product to Defiance with the expectation of receiving payment (NET30/etc accounts - get product now, pay for it later) at around the same time. Obviously there was some trust within the industry of Defiance's ability at that point to fulfill it's obligations.

Judgedoug, it's a fair point, but let's not put on rose-tinted glasses here. It was already clarified that that review was also posted on Defiance's own page, which someone looking into Defiance could certainly have looked at.

Also, when I've had to do things I wasn't familiar with, I generally wasn't risking almost 70K of other people's money . It is totally fair to say that Defiance is the crook here, but it's also fair to say that Torn Armor was a little reckless in going with them. They haven't revealed how much they paid them upfront for no work done, but it seems to have been a lot. Saying they should have done their homework better is reasonable.

And we can all agree that we hope they nail Defiance to the wall for this legally... but they were reckless with the funds in going to Defiance and paying a significant portion of the funds they took in upfront.

Both can be true at the same time, it doesn't have to be one or the other... and imo, that's usually how it is in cases like this. I really hope Torn Armor gets justice and gets their money back.