by MillertimeRC
Ophryon wrote:
If the Up Front campaign decides to charge more for named cards now, as some here have suggested, that would seem closer in feel to a bait-and-switch, although it's really just supply-and-demand at work. The lucky early 10 are not entitled to exclusivity, simply the advantage of getting in on a hot product early.
I would disagree to this in some cases. If a special tier is promoted as (for example) "Limited to 10" then part of that premium tier is being 1 of 10.
...and/or false advertising...
Again, no. False advertising is about enticing you to pay more for something that turns out to be less than promised. I don't see how you could make a case for that here. If more limited slots are made available, what have those original 10 backers lost? If anything, they gained more than subsequent backers, as they have the advantage of picking any nationality they want.
You seem to be suggesting that those 10 backers have lost out on some sort of exclusive bragging rights. No such thing was promised. (And if that was their main motivation for backing, I would feel very sorry for them.)
Again, limited ≠ exclusive.
I do wish people would be more cautious with definitions before gleefully stirring up frivolous controversy.
I'm not making a case for or suggesting anything, I just posted what happened and asked what everyone else thought about it.
I think you should be more cautious with definitions - limited does in fact equal exclusive. If something is limited to 10 people, it's those 10 exclusively that will get it. That's not the question here - I'm talking about selling something as limited (or exclusive, your chose of terms inserted here) and then changing those numbers.