Regardless of accepting a developers word, this is why I only back at the minimum pledge for most crowdfunding games. As I just want to pre-order at a cheaper price.

So I'm not disappointed but I can see the point of the other backers. As inXile should of communicated this earlier with the major delay updates over the last two years.

I agree, they probably should have communicated it, but that's also their decision. Whether they do or not it's still a no-win situation for them. Even if they make the most gentle announcement of a cut feature you can make, a lot of people will still go nuts over it (like they are now) and totally ignore the fact they said they are making other aspects of the game bigger and better.

Depends. From a cold economic PoV they took money for a promise, invested in their product, speculating for future interest. Then they changed their business plan and in some case made the result worthless for the backer (italian translation). They do indeed offer a refund, but after three years of calculating with that money. The refund sum is the same as the pledge sum three years before, without any incentive. Thanks to inflation, this money is now worth less than three years before, so the bottom line is: you lose, they make a plus with selling their product. Don't tell a class action specialist about that.

I don't say I would do that, but if you're very angry imho this is valid personal opinion. If they had communicated their plans before, you could at least negate deception. Stock listed companies have the obligation to announce immediately every company-related news that can affect their shareholders. You could expect the same from a crowdfunding project. If not from a legal obligation than at least from a morale one.

Not to be argumentative but isn't believing them and giving them the benefit of the doubt with no way to know if they put the money into other areas of the game or not the same as blindly accepting it.:)

No, it's called trusting a developer at their word. :) Why would I believe they are lying? Are they trying to sneakily pocket some money? In the grand scheme of things that would be ridiculous considering they are poised to make much more money in the long run if they do the best of their ability to make great games. IMO.

As for morale obligations, they have an obligation to deliver a game to the best of their ability. If that means they have to sacrifice stretch goals to make that happen, then that is what they have to do. Again, there is an assumption that these features are cut and the resources were just removed or lost. They clearly said they reinvested into the game to compensate by making other features of the game bigger and better. They gave specific examples, such as making the area known as The Bloom much bigger than it would have been if they had included the stretch goal city, etc. They essentially took the same pie and split it into different size pieces rather than removing pieces and trying to pass it off as a whole pie. IMO.

In any event, I'm interested in the game and hope it does well for them. I understand people are upset they didn't get some things in (I was upset when D:OS didn't have a day/night cycle, as I'm sure everyone else was. :P), but the game will still be great. If anything, wait and see how the final game is. But more CRPGs are a good thing, even if a few details are different when the game ships.

I'm also ready to believe that InExile spent all the money they got on the game, and that it turned out better for it. Still I find the negation of 3 companions very disappointing. If nothing else it really cuts down on the game's replayability. It also reflects badly on the developers, IMO, that they made promises for things they decided not to do. On the other hand I've backed games which I haven't enjoyed playing all that much. So if Torment turns out to be a good game, I'd be willing to overlook this sort of thing. I think I'd be really upset if I had pledged a massive amount of money though.

I want more companions in all RPGs (less fleshed out story-wise but offering more choices that affect gameplay), but that's just me. And it's also beside the point. :P

To address what you just posted, what if the remaining companions are twice as fleshed-out than they would have been otherwise? That's kind of what I'm getting at.

Doesn't sound too bad, IMO.

Again I don't see a difference but I see no reason for us to debate in circles. I'll just agree to disagree. I don't think they are trying to scam people or pocket money, however I'm not trusting enough to take them at there word. I'm more inclined to believe things are taking more time and money than they thought so things are getting cut.

At the end of the day though it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. If they deliver a worthy game people will forget all about this and line up to kickstart their next game. Much the same as D:OS.

I do have some sympathy with the fact that "no plan survives contact with reality"; that the realities of development mean that some features are changed or cut for the good of the game.

However, I think Avantenor makes a good point. When it comes to cutting something like a localisation, that seems a bit more cynical. That is simply a matter of the cost of translation being higher than they hoped, and, rather then taking the hit, they simply refund people's money that they've been sitting on for three years. If it were my business decision, I would argue that the right thing to do in that case is to absorb the cost, which is virtually guaranteed to be only a fraction of the profits, and extremely important to customer goodwill.

Well I do disagree because there is no evidence your assessment is correct. For one, things aren't just getting cut now, they seemed to have made these decisions earlier in development and just didn't communicate them. Two, again, they explain the decisions, so unless you are saying they are making that story up that instead of including a stretch goal city they chose to expand The Bloom area by leaps and bounds because it was more Torment-y (their words), then why not take them at their word? If the game comes out and The Bloom is a one shack village with a random NPC that says "I am error" you can tell me how wrong I was. :P Until then I see no reason not to believe them.

I'm certain you're right about the decision being made much earlier, at least in the case of the Italian translation. They said they delayed the game for months for translation time. Surely they knew at that time they were cutting the Italian translation to reduce costs, even though had promised it. Don't you think that's a bit cynical, and quite different from making hard creative decisions about changing elements of the game? There's no way they couldn't afford it, if they wanted to.

From InXile:

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. They are also giving out refunds for anyone who wants one, even though they aren't really obligated to do so. I'm not a Kickstarter history buff but have other Kickstarters given refunds to customers who wanted them for the game missing stretch goals?

I think that is wrong, and I don't think much of their post. The deal was that there would be an italian translation, along with a number of others. Not that they would determine how many of each nationality were backers, and make a decision on which ones should be honoured.

The history of what previous Kickstarters have seen fit to do by means of restitution doesn't really have any bearing on the situation. As was discussed in the legal article I posted, you have legal and moral duty to delever what you promised. As I said, I think it is reasonable to show some flexibity on tough game-related decisions. I think cutting out a language group because you've estimated that they're the smallest and your costs have overrun, despite having made deal with them - I think that's far less defensible.

They're offering refunds. If Italian backers and/or those who wanted to play the game in Italian want to get their money back, they can. It ain't that serious.

And cutting the Italo translation was a tough game-related decision, too.

No, I think that cutting a discrete piece of work, like a translation, that doesn't actually change the game in any way, is categorically different than a creative decision for the benefit of the game itself. One could maybe make that argument if you were dealing with a tiny indie that was absolutely constrained by cost, but that is not the case for a company like this.

With regards to refunds, I think you proceed under the assumption that return of funds is proper restitution for failing to deliver on a contract. That is by no means always true, legally or morally. In many cases the proper legal remedy is to force the party in breach to carry out their commitments. Of course, you're right that because we're only dealing (individually) with nickels and dimes, no-one is likely to commit to a legal action, which is why so many Kickstarters get away with so much. But in principle, I don't think it stands at all.

Then it's bamboo shoots under the fingernails, I guess. :slap:

I'm just making a point of principle, one that many backers feel, and not one that says people are due dire penalties. It's a bit of a cop out, on the central point, to belittle the significance because it's only a few bucks on a computer game.

What I'm saying is that when one makes a contract, the purchasing party is entitled to what they purchased. Let's say that, due to some weird circumstances, I sign a contract to sell you my car for a hundred bucks, and then I welch on the deal. Legally and morally, I don't owe you a hundred bucks, I owe you a car. In some circumstances, a straight refund on a deal is sufficient, because one could take that money and buy a straight replacement. But, when one can't get that thing anywhere else, like a copy of Numenera in Itailian, a refund is not sufficient - one is due the thing itself, period.

If they were in a position where they had no options, and a refund was their best effort at restitution, that would be one thing, but here they are making a hard-nosed decision to save some money by deliberately breaching a deal.

Kickstarter Terms of Use:

They've already done all of the things required of them.

As was explained in that article, the KS terms are merely brief guidelines for the benefit of both parties. They do not have legal force over the fundamental contract to purchase that is made.

I highlight the terms above, as if they were binding. As I said before, if one were dealing with a tiny indie that had no other funds than those provided by the KS, then terms liked "prevented" and "best possible" would have meaning - it may literally be that they can do no more. However, if it is a company with greater resources, those terms do not apply. The fact a company may exceed the budget provided by the KS by fulfilling their obligations, but still have money to their name - that is tough luck. They must use whatever resources they have in total to fulfill the contract. That is how business works!