"In his blogpost, Mr Dakan apologised for how Haunts has turned out and pledged to refund any backer who wanted their money back out of his own pocket."
Well, at least he's saying he'll do the right thing about it.
No, that is not "the right thing", there's absolutely nothing right about doing that. It's good natured and nice of him, but in the grand scheme of things if it's anything that anything is "a terrible idea".
I see Masklinn's point, but I also agree with you.
Fundamentally, kickstarter is much like patronage. You may wind up getting something fantastic by backing, but you are taking on a high level of risk of getting either nothing or something very bad. All backers need to understand this, and the only obligation (morally, I'm not even sure this could be enforced legally) is to put in a good faith effort.
With that said, I'm also comfortable saying that someone who is going beyond their obligations to make things as right as they can is doing the right thing. This is the right thing in terms of his reputation, in terms of people backing him the next time he uses kickstarter, and it is morally right in the sense that it is a good beyond what he had to do.
It definitely isn't "the right thing": kickstarter isn't a store where you buy a product, it's a funding platform for projects. That means the project may fail, and as a backer you must understand that: you're a grantor or patron, not a customer.
There may be reasons and justifications to refund backers (or even just good-heartedness), but short of a knowingly fraudulent project I do not think it can ever be "the right thing".
And I say that having put about a month of income into various crowdfunding projects (on kickstarters and other crowdfunding sites) so far: they got me excited, I'd like them to succeed, but I fully expect that some will fail (entirely) and others will yield turds or will fail to live up to expectations.
I understand your position, and it's fine as far as it goes.
But consider the long run for the guy behind this.
Say he wants to run another project down the road. He has the negative of having failed, but he has the positive of offering people's money back. Which in most people's mind would mitigate the failure to some degree.
Does that change your view that it can never be the right thing? The backers and the project leader benefit from his stance. What makes it wrong?
Kickstarter isn't a store. When you back a project you're investing in potential. The project failing to get completed doesn't mean you deserve your money back. In this case, he spent the money on what he said he'd spend it on (building the game) so it's kind of insane for him to offer to refund backers their original investment. It undermines the principles behind Kickstarter.
On the other hand, it is unclear how backer rewards figure into the picture. Maybe he feels that since a copy of the finished game was listed as a backer reward, he owes people a refund for being unable to deliver that reward?
It continues bolstering the idea that Kickstarter is a store and not a prospective revenue builder. It creates expectations for others to follow suit if their projects go similarly.
1. that it's got nothing to do with responsibility 2. that the money should be gone (in trying to get the project done) and if they can refund funders they had no reason to crowdfund to start with and 3. that it's a completely different set of expectations.
Again, kickstarter is not a store. And it's not a bank either. If somebody with an idea wants a loan, he checks in with a bank not a crowdfunding site.
That is not how investment in business ventures or projects works. It's not a zero-sum game. Sometimes things don't work out and there's no value to return to the investor. It's called risk.
Well, at least he's saying he'll do the right thing about it.