Lone_Scout: That's a weak DRM that can easily be bypassed, but not really DRM-Free, if there is no offline installer.
sanscript: That's a matter of interpretation, just like the law.
misteryo: But, nobody is going to win a fraud complaint at the FTC. Nobody can prove that the change of platform caused them "damage" legally speaking.
sanscript: I would guess that's the main difference between the EU and the US. In US you have to prove some type of financial damage (and you actually admitted it would be for "investors" further down in a response to PateAlf), while in most countries in Europe this would be considered a form of scam/fraud.
In Europe we have stronger laws against false advertisements and scams, among other things. I imaging it would be really difficult to try this in a court in the US, or even a complaint to FTC.
I actually hadn't thought about the investors until PaterAlf brought it up. All along I was talking about regular backers. On Fig, unlike Kickstarter, there is, in addition to the regular backers, an opportunity to invest in the production of the game. Those investments are handled through securities and trading laws - a whole other kettle of fish.
As far as the EU goes, though, I'd like to see you back up your assertion about the law protecting crowdfunding backers. I know that the EU was looking at passing some legislation regarding crowdfunding in 2015. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of it. But it looks to me like even the EU recognizes some basic differences between crowdfunding and a purchase , legally speaking.
Whether the EU would protect one of their citizens in this particular case, I don't know. But it still seems clear to me that it would be considered as a crowdfunding transaction, not as a purchase.