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.

weeble1000 wrote:

carboncopy wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:


Second, you should file a complaint with your credit card company as consumers are usually well protected if a merchant
fails to deliver products they paid for.

Lol. It amazes me that Dust would write this...anywhere. Backers didn't pay for goods. Period. Kickstarter is not a store. Let's just hammer home how the entire project was a violation of Kickstarter's T&Q.

Hmmm, how is that a violation of KS T&C? Kickstarter projects are free to have their own terms, and most of them are setup as Preorder Projects. It's not the way that Kickstarter was originally intended, but that's the way its grown. Kickstarter has even altered their T&C to reflect (wash their hands of) that. People often dispute Kickstarter purchases with their credit cards or through their banks and are successful. It becomes an issue when the KS has drug past 6 months or a certain time period, and then it's no longer possible to go that route. Then you have to go through the court system.

Were you reading an entirely different set of Terms and Conditions than me? Maybe one of us is trapped in thevTwilight Zone. Kickstarter is LITTERALY explicit and unambiguous about the fact that it is NOT a preorder system.

I'm normally not so dismissive, but seriously, go to the website and actually read it. Then come back and revise your post if you feel it is necessarry.

I have read them before and just rechecked them. Maybe you should actually read them yourself before being impulsively dismissive?

Here, I'll even post it right here (emphasis mine):

Kickstarter provides a funding platform for creative projects. When a creator posts a project on Kickstarter, they’re inviting other people to form a contract with them. Anyone who backs a project is accepting the creator’s offer, and forming that contract.

Kickstarter is not a part of this contract — the contract is a direct legal agreement between creators and their backers. Here are the terms that govern that agreement:

When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.

Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life. At the same time, backers must understand that when they back a project, they’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised.

If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:

they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.
The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.

It seems pretty clear to me. Project owners set their own contract terms. KS does try to set limits on the types of projects/products, but pre-ordering isn't one of those.

Your turn, what terms were you reading, and where are the sections in regards to pre-ordering?

carboncopy wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Major Malfunction wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Given that you can't be considered unbiased, confirmation is required.

Confirmation of what? That BF is calling people, or that BF trolls are in this thread?

Ooooooh! Now you're getting nasty. You can't make claims like that without evidence and expect to be helping the situation.

Why not? Pretty much everyone is making claims with little to no actual evidence in this thread. If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck....

This.
Really tired of reading the figjam nonsense:
"I've worked in the industry so I know.."
"I know arteests..."
"I know how factoring banking works..."
"my opinion is more factual than any official release from the interested parties..."
"that contracts not credible but I'll contradict myself later by using it to prove my point"
Adds nothing to the discussion at all and is imo a cheap maneuver to derail the legitimate issues backers have.. So yes, walks like a... talks like a...
Just add them to the ignore list and your Dakka experience will be much more pleasurable.

Must say that BF aren't doing themselves any favours with the previous updates. If you're going to address all the "misinformation" then you really need to make sure the content of the statement is entirely factual.
Having to correct yourself a week later with a post that's even more "untruthful" just show's how inept they are with PR and have been with the actual running of the KS.
Providing some juicy bits of evidence there for upcoming legal actions methinx.

carboncopy wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

carboncopy wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:


Second, you should file a complaint with your credit card company as consumers are usually well protected if a merchant
fails to deliver products they paid for.

Lol. It amazes me that Dust would write this...anywhere. Backers didn't pay for goods. Period. Kickstarter is not a store. Let's just hammer home how the entire project was a violation of Kickstarter's T&Q.

Hmmm, how is that a violation of KS T&C? Kickstarter projects are free to have their own terms, and most of them are setup as Preorder Projects. It's not the way that Kickstarter was originally intended, but that's the way its grown. Kickstarter has even altered their T&C to reflect (wash their hands of) that. People often dispute Kickstarter purchases with their credit cards or through their banks and are successful. It becomes an issue when the KS has drug past 6 months or a certain time period, and then it's no longer possible to go that route. Then you have to go through the court system.

Were you reading an entirely different set of Terms and Conditions than me? Maybe one of us is trapped in thevTwilight Zone. Kickstarter is LITTERALY explicit and unambiguous about the fact that it is NOT a preorder system.

I'm normally not so dismissive, but seriously, go to the website and actually read it. Then come back and revise your post if you feel it is necessarry.

I have read them before and just rechecked them. Maybe you should actually read them yourself before being impulsively dismissive?

Here, I'll even post it right here (emphasis mine):

Kickstarter provides a funding platform for creative projects. When a creator posts a project on Kickstarter, they’re inviting other people to form a contract with them. Anyone who backs a project is accepting the creator’s offer, and forming that contract.

Kickstarter is not a part of this contract — the contract is a direct legal agreement between creators and their backers. Here are the terms that govern that agreement:

When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.

Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life. At the same time, backers must understand that when they back a project, they’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised.

If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:

they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.
The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.

It seems pretty clear to me. Project owners set their own contract terms. KS does try to set limits on the types of projects/products, but pre-ordering isn't one of those.

Your turn, what terms were you reading, and where are the sections in regards to pre-ordering?

I've raised you an italicized. And I can also quote the website.

Kickstarter is not a store. People aren't buying things that already exist — they're helping to create new things. Creating things isn't always easy. Some projects will go wonderfully, and others will run into obstacles. Be prepared for a little bit of each.

Oh, and there's nothing in that 'contract' that says project creators create their own terms. All it says is essentially that project creators can't deliberately defraud backers, which is a damn sight far from 'pre-order'.

And last but not least, the term "pre-order" typically refers to a product that has not yet been released as opposed to one that has not been created. When you pre-order a product, usually from a store, you are entering into an agreement clearly bounded by extant consumer laws, plus whatever terms and conditions the seller applies to the sale. When you use Kickstarter, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions above, which only require project creators to make a good faith effort to deliver pledge rewards.

Good faith effort is...not...a...guarantee. When I buy a product or pre-order a product, the seller has an obligation to deliver goods that are A) merchantable and B) up to specifications. In short, I must be delivered goods that meet the specifications of the product that I ordered and which are fit for sale. Kickstarter's contract above attaches neither of those requirements; neither explicitly nor implicitly.

In short, Kickstarter says it best:

Kickstarter is not a store

I haven't seen such selective reading (or maybe functional illiteracy) outside YMDC in a long time.

Are people perhaps getting the websites advertising, goals etc or statement of intent, confused with official Terms and Conditions of use of the website?

Yeah, it seems pretty clear. Kickstarter is not a store. Meaning that Kickstarter doesn't sell anything.

Everyone using Kickstarter to get funding, on the other hand, is still going to be bound by the same laws as any other merchant. That said, there's a much higher degree of risk. Whereas a normal business gets funded first and uses revenues to pay off its debts/investments, KS is allowing companies to reverse that order, lol, by using revenues to take the place of needed investment. Which really puts the purchaser in a much more precarious position, in the fact that they are both investing in the project, and hoping it will succeed. Products seem to have a fairly decent success rate, but then again, buying something that's already produced has a 100% success rate.

I dunno how these things remain so popular. Taking advantage of impuse buying behavior I guess.

weeble1000 wrote:

Oh, and there's nothing in that 'contract' that says project creators create their own terms. ]

Did you read the first paragraph? It's right there in non-legalese so it's more easily understood by common users. Here is the line again:

When a creator posts a project on Kickstarter, they’re inviting other people to form a contract with them. Anyone who backs a project is accepting the creator’s offer, and forming that contract.

Kickstarter is not a part of this contract — the contract is a direct legal agreement between creators and their backers.

A contract/agreement is a collection of terms agreed upon by all parties involved. If you look at any project page there is clearly an agreement happening between the creator and the backers. Kickstarter says it's not apart of those specific project agreements, yet it does have terms that "govern" (notice it doesn't say "make up") those agreements. Kickstarter imposes certain limitations that basically says you can't defraud backers as you pointed out. Kickstarter can't regulate all of the details/terms of a project, but it has to lay down some rules, otherwise if it becomes a site that enables fraudulent behavior it can be liable for damages no matter how many disclaimers it makes.

The project page is an agreement between the creator and backers that would be upheld in court. It may not look like an "official" legal agreement, but legal agreements come in a variety of forms ranging from verbal statements, to written notes, to emails, to 100+ paged documents laden with legalese. In case of DUST/Battlefront, the terms of the project is clear that you are paying for product. They even have pictures of what costs what in case it's too much trouble for you to read.

Pre-ordering product simply means ordering before it's released. On a retail level, this can be before, during, or after its created, since they are trying to gauge numbers to order from a distributor. When you are pre-ordering directly from the creator/manufacturer, you are almost always ordering before these items are physically made, because they are trying to gauge how much to produce. So in terms of pre-ordering from the creator, you are almost always ordering something that hasn't been made yet - something new. This was the case with DUST and Battlefront. They had prototypes (some of which were just new guns on old models) but no products yet. The funding was stated to help accelerate the process of production, which apparently was a half-truth unless accelerating production means BF paying off its debts so production could actually begin.

You can say whatever you like, but the fact remains that by backing a Kickstarter campaign you accept the prospect that you will never receive your pledge rewards.

Or is that somehow not the case?

Nothing a project creator says changes that basic fact.

I haven't seen any decision in State of Washington v Altius Management LLC. So you can argue until you are blue in the face, but there aint no precedent.

weeble1000 wrote:
You can say whatever you like, but the fact remains that by backing a Kickstarter campaign you accept the prospect that you will never receive your pledge rewards.

Or is that somehow not the case?

I'm not going to argue with that basic sentiment, because well, doing so, would be idiotic. But... That's true of purchasing, well, anything online.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a backer of this kickstarter, and quite frankly, I'm really glad I'm not. However, ultimately, like buying anything online, it's a question of risk.

In recent years, I have faced these exact same issues from several online stores, including literally high street names, where I could very well have actually having done a traditional preorder of something, and still faced the very real prospect of my money vanishing into thin air.

Maelstrom Games
Total Warhammer
Game
and... HMV.

3 out of 4 of these (chains of) stores went through bankruptcy proceedings, which meant, yes, theoretical, if I had a preorder (or store vouchers), I would be due money back. But I would be a creditor, at the very bottom of a very, very long list of credits. So, in reality, that money is gone.

And then there was TotalWargamer with their 'oh, sometimes banks take a long time to process a refund' excuse. - My bank did come through on me on that one though.

Everything in life is a case of risk management. Is kickstarter more risky than preordering from a store? Yeah, I'll hold my hand up and say, 'yeah, probably.' Is it unjustifiably risky, compared to the risk that is already there from a standard preorder? Well, that's up to you.

As for my own opinion, the kickstarter angle probably acts as an extra layer of complexity, but, you'd probably all be in this mess in the nearly exact same way if the purchasing was done through Battlefronts webstore, as a long term preorder, rather than kickstarter.

And probably they would have been less morally obligated to give you any information whatsoever, either.

weeble1000 wrote:
You can say whatever you like, but the fact remains that by backing a Kickstarter campaign you accept the prospect that you will never receive your pledge rewards.

Or is that somehow not the case?

Nothing a project creator says changes that basic fact.

I haven't seen any decision in State of Washington v Altius Management LLC. So you can argue until you are blue in the face, but there aint no precedent.

OK, come back in a number of years when that case and any appeals are finished and feel free to edit your posts if the outcome happens to reflect anything that's being discussed right now. However, in the meantime please don't mislead the people reading this thread who have purchased $100s to $1000s of product from the KS that they don't have the same consumer rights (and as Compel points out, same risks) as purchasing anything online, especially when you've demonstrated you haven't bothered to read KS's Terms and Conditions nor look into basic consumer laws that govern such agreements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For anyone interested, here's a good layman article in regards to Kickstarter legal: http://www.yosemiteip.com/blog/2015/3/9/understanding-your-kickstarter-legal-liabilities

It really drives home how KS language of "backer", "pledge", "rewards", etc. are misleading, and states things better than what I've been attempting to say here.

It's an interesting article, but it reinforces weeble's point a bit; there's not a lot of settled precedent on the matter. Until there is, any claims you want to make in terms of legality are also puffery because there's no prior cases to cite. That means if things go pear-shaped, pursuing action is a costly matter with an uncertain outcome (i.e. - risk) versus one that's fairly cut-and-dry because it follows the same lines of case X v. Y which established precedents A, B and C. Even the quote by the Washington Attorney General backs that claim up:

Robert Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General wrote:Consumers need to be aware that crowdfunding is not without risk

Now, as time goes forward those grey areas of the law will be hammered out as is the way the system works, and I suspect that things will largely shake out over time like carboncopy and Compel think they will. However, in the interim it's probably best to err on the side of caution in an equation where you assume a great deal of risk (the project fails to deliver entirely, where your recourse may be limited) for a fairly marginal benefit (a discount typically amounting to wholesale price; if that). I liked the analogy to the bankrupt stores as it's probably the best fit for the kind of risk you're taking on with any future goods transaction; you can't get the money back if it's gone.

Fortunately in this case (to steer this back on topic), the other activities BF is in the midst of makes it unlikely there is no money and very likely that they just don't want to give more of it to DS than they absolutely have to. At some point one would figure that one side is going to have to swallow their pride or else get dragged into being one of those precedent-setting cases (spoiler alert: the court costs, in addition to a contract lawsuit between the companies, would exceed the revenues of this KS by a wide margin I'd imagine). The PR hits both sides are taking, one with the public and the other with future partners, has also likely reached the level of non-trivial costs.

 Krinsath wrote:
The PR hits both sides are taking, one with the public and the other with future partners, has also likely reached the level of non-trivial costs.

I'd say they're BOTH taking hits in both of these areas.

 Krinsath wrote:
It's an interesting article, but it reinforces weeble's point a bit; there's not a lot of settled precedent on the matter. Until there is, any claims you want to make in terms of legality are also puffery because there's no prior cases to cite. That means if things go pear-shaped, pursuing action is a costly matter with an uncertain outcome (i.e. - risk) versus one that's fairly cut-and-dry because it follows the same lines of case X v. Y which established precedents A, B and C. Even the quote by the Washington Attorney General backs that claim up:

It depends what kind of ruling you're looking for.

If you are a backer that simply wants your money back, consumer recourse is normal, and you have centuries of precedence of failed agreements and failures to deliver to stand on.

If you are the project owner attempting to shift responsibility to KS, or the AG of a state trying to pin a fraudulent business, or a backer who is trying to "get those $%^@ers thrown in jail", then there is some lack of precedence due to KS crowdfunding being newer territory.

Robert Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General wrote:Consumers need to be aware that crowdfunding is not without risk

I agree that KS is risky, but not for the same reasons that weeble was posting. It's more risky because:

1) Campaigns tend to drag out past the period credit card companies are willing to dispute charges. This is the easiest, quickest, and most often used consumer recourse.
2) Campaigns tend to be across state lines or international, making travel to jurisdictions much more expensive (note: same as any online store)
3) Because of KS's language, ease of project setup, lack of education, and open guidelines, it spurs projects to get out of control quickly, and you have a much higher degree of creators who didn't mean to not deliver on promises find themselves in trouble.

carboncopy wrote:


If you are a backer that simply wants your money back, consumer recourse is normal, and you have centuries of precedence of failed agreements and failures to deliver to stand on.

Not really, because there is no sales-contract, not even an informal one in the sense of hand-shakes or orders from online stores.

As a Kickstarter backer, you are backing the idea. In theory, you could run a Kickstarter-campaign without rewards, just asking people to fund your vision out of the good of their heart. In turn, you may send out rewards, but these aren't legally linked to the contribution you made as a backer in the sense of a money-for-goods sales-transaction.

Of course, the practice of Kickstarter differs greatly, but in a nutshell, Kickstarter-projects ask you to take the "investor's risk" for the a potential pay-off in consumable product, rather than stakes in the company itself, as you'd get for "crowdfunding" it on the stock market.

Consumer recourse on Kickstarter is thus potentially somewhat tricky, if it might lead to be interpreted as precedent for "consumer recourse" for failed investments of the more traditional sort.

Wonderwolf wrote:

carboncopy wrote:


If you are a backer that simply wants your money back, consumer recourse is normal, and you have centuries of precedence of failed agreements and failures to deliver to stand on.

Not really, because there is no sales-contract, not even an informal one in the sense of hand-shakes or orders from online stores.

As a Kickstarter backer, you are backing the idea. In theory, you could run a Kickstarter-campaign without rewards, just asking people to fund your vision out of the good of their heart. In turn, you may send out rewards, but these aren't legally linked to the contribution you made as a backer in the sense of a money-for-goods sales-transaction.

Of course, the practice of Kickstarter differs greatly, but in a nutshell, Kickstarter-projects ask you to take the "investor's risk" for the a potential pay-off in consumable product, rather than stakes in the company itself, as you'd get for "crowdfunding" it on the stock market.

Consumer recourse on Kickstarter is thus potentially somewhat tricky, if it might lead to be interpreted as precedent for "consumer recourse" for failed investments of the more traditional sort.

That's incorrect for a majority of Kickstarter transactions that happen. And certainly not the case for the DUST/BF Kickstarter. More info above (on this page for that matter).

Also, "investment" is another word that gets confused in regards to KSs. Kickstarter actually forbids investment transactions. KS transactions are almost exclusively an exchange of goods for money or gifting of money.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Also, it's important to note that the rumor of a BF employee contacting backers is completely unsubstantiated.

OK, so now I have John Matthews phone number and a voice mail on my cell phone. Is that enough substantiation of Battlefront contacting Kickstarter backers?

 Major Malfunction wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Also, it's important to note that the rumor of a BF employee contacting backers is completely unsubstantiated.

OK, so now I have John Matthews phone number and a voice mail on my cell phone. Is that enough substantiation of Battlefront contacting Kickstarter backers?

That's funny and troubling but luckily it seems they can't afford international rates.
Wonder if they got around to calling M. Zabkar. Noticed he hadn't posted re: the last update so maybe they sent the suits after him.
Are BF threating legal action against backers that have spoken out or was he personally going to fulfil your outstanding pledge? Kind of like one of those "cash for favourable comment scenarios"?

You could upload the voicemail online. I'm not sure people would just believe that you have received such a thing

Hekal Xul wrote:

 Major Malfunction wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Also, it's important to note that the rumor of a BF employee contacting backers is completely unsubstantiated.

OK, so now I have John Matthews phone number and a voice mail on my cell phone. Is that enough substantiation of Battlefront contacting Kickstarter backers?

That's funny and troubling but luckily it seems they can't afford international rates.
Wonder if they got around to calling M. Zabkar. Noticed he hadn't posted re: the last update so maybe they sent the suits after him.
Are BF threating legal action against backers that have spoken out or was he personally going to fulfil your outstanding pledge? Kind of like one of those "cash for favourable comment scenarios"?

I have it on good authority that they did contact Mr. Zabkar. Doubt me if you like, but I know it happened.

No threats, more like soft selling and attempting to smooth ruffled feathers by admitting guilt and promising to do better. Personally I am not interested in having a salesman make overtures over the phone. Put it in writing please.

Sining wrote:
You could upload the voicemail online. I'm not sure people would just believe that you have received such a thing

I could upload it and the Battlebois would just say that it's a fake. Some people would never be happy. It's almost like they are on the Battlefront payroll or something.

Accusing people of being "balltlebois" and other derogatory terms you've used just because you disagree with them doesn't win you any sympathy. And you may find your doing damage to your own side of the argument because people blame the messenger. I can see people moving to the Battle Front side simply because they don't like you.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Accusing people of being "balltlebois" and other derogatory terms you've used just because you disagree with them doesn't win you any sympathy. And you may find your doing damage to your own side of the argument because people blame the messenger. I can see people moving to the Battle Front side simply because they don't like you.

I know I am...

To be fair, though, both sides have thoroughly trashed their reputations during this dispute. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of fans wrote one or both companies off after this mess.

PLEASE remember to obey RULE #1 here at all times.

In fact, please follow all the rules of the site - thanks!

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Accusing people of being "balltlebois" and other derogatory terms you've used just because you disagree with them doesn't win you any sympathy. And you may find your doing damage to your own side of the argument because people blame the messenger. I can see people moving to the Battle Front side simply because they don't like you.

Amen.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:


I dunno how these things remain so popular. Taking advantage of impuse buying behavior I guess.

Or because the vast majority of the time you get a terrific product. This is the only time I've had problems with KS event I funded, and that's been over several years.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I can see people moving to the Battle Front side simply because they don't like you.

I think it's endearing.

 Major Malfunction wrote:

No threats, more like soft selling and attempting to smooth ruffled feathers by admitting guilt and promising to do better. Personally I am not interested in having a salesman make overtures over the phone. Put it in writing please.

To be fair, that's typically how conflicts like these get resolved quickly and easily. Picking up the phone and being reasonable tends to go a very long way.

They're doing it to the wrong people. Calling a backer won't resolve anything.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Major Malfunction wrote:

No threats, more like soft selling and attempting to smooth ruffled feathers by admitting guilt and promising to do better. Personally I am not interested in having a salesman make overtures over the phone. Put it in writing please.

To be fair, that's typically how conflicts like these get resolved quickly and easily. Picking up the phone and being reasonable tends to go a very long way.

Maybe he should ring W. Yau and attempt for once to be reasonable instead of making inflexible and unreasonable demands....

Battlefront should just pay for the rest of the wave 2 items not in dispute that pledgers deserve and not a penny more and Dust should ship them since they'll already made... and then the two of them could fight it out for the freebies that we all know no one will ever get at this point.

I bought the old FFG Tactics starter set a few years back, and quite enjoyed it. Love the mechas and vehicles, but don't care mutch for the bendy infantry minis.

Anyhoo, I glance in every now and again to see how things are going and if it's worth investing again. A few things have put me off:-

FFG gearing towards Warfare, despite Paulo not liking it.
The FFG/BF Transition - The game essentialy in limbo.
The Warfare/Battlefield mess. Despite not being liked by Paulo, Warfare had a small loyal following. The attempt to release Battlefield as a replacement (whilst not calling it a replacement) was badly handled.
Now there's the Kickstarter fiasco and a breakdown in communications between DS and BF.

Can the game in one form or another survive ?

I've got a fair whack of DUST stuff sitting around. With all of this garbage floating around, I might see myself picking up some discounted FFG stuff at some stage, but I think in terms of new product purchases, the game is dead to me.