Well, it relates to crowdsourcing part of the work. About 10 years ago, when this project was started, there was huge frenzy about crowdsourcing wikipedia/youtube etc would solve all the problems in the world. So obviously our plans had a section that relied on this new technique.

Okay, so you got caught up in the crowdsourcing frenzy. That happens. Sorry it didn’t work out for you, but I should note that, notwithstanding what some publications said or implied a while ago, crowdsourcing will not solve all the world’s problems, and not every crowdsourcing plan is guaranteed to succeed.

When they [certain publications] published these facts to large crowd, these become government’s promises…

No. No they do not. When a privately-owned publication makes wild speculations about the future of technology and publishes these things to large crowds, they absolutely do not become the government’s promises.

Based on your broken English, perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the U.S.’s system of government? One of the key tenants behind our country is having a free and independent press not beholden to any government. This means that what the press says is not a statement by the government, no matter how large the audience is. The government has essentially no control over anything the press says.

So it appears that the government did not promise you anything you thought it had.

…and everyone knows government can be trusted to deliver what has been promised.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! ???? I’m sorry, but unfortunately, the government cannot be trusted to deliver what has been promised. Of course, in this case it doesn’t appear to be the case that the government actually promised anything.

Merely publishing the same material to large enough crowd makes the statements in those publications more likely to become reality.

That’s not how it works, especially where, as here, we’re dealing with statements about future results. Something doesn’t become true or more likely to become true simply by publishing it to a large enough crowd over and over again.

So when government promised that crowdsourcing approach is the future, we obviously believed it.

Again, based on what you say happened, the government didn’t actually promise that. The press may have promised that, but they aren’t the government, nor is the government responsible for what they choose to publish.

Also, “crowdsourcing is the future” does not mean “crowdsourcing is guaranteed to get you the results you want 100% of the time”.

From what I can tell, your story is this:

About 10 years ago, you, along with some others, started working on a piece of 3D modeling software which could be used to design mansions.

During this time, news publications were gushing on and on about how great crowdsourcing projects like YouTube and Wikipedia are, and how crowdsourcing is the future and can be used to solve all sorts of problems.

You assumed that, because these statements were reaching such a wide audience, the U.S. government must be making them.

Because you trust any promise made by the government, you trusted these claims and so decided to crowdsource some of the work for your software. Unfortunately, because you couldn’t get anyone to so much as look at your project, the crowdsourcing failed miserably, leading to your software being horribly incomplete and thus nonfunctional.

As such, you seem to be blaming the government for failing to live up to the promise you thought it had made. You also seem to be blaming YouTube and Wikipedia because you can’t understand why their crowdsourcing was successful and yours wasn’t, or possibly because you believe that they, too, are somehow responsible for the statements made by the press about crowdsourcing.

I’m still not clear how Minecraft enters into this, but maybe it has to do with their successful crowdsourcing and maybe even the fact that Notch was able to buy a real mansion with the money he earned selling Minecraft to Microsoft. I don’t know.

From what I can tell, you seem to be misunderstanding the law, what constitutes a promise rather than a prediction, the connection between the press and the government, and some terminology. You also seem somewhat gullible based on how you seem to think that widely-published statements are likely to be true and that the government is especially likely to fulfill its promises. And you don’t seem to know how to successfully market your products—both the mansion-designing software and the games you sell on itch.io—to your target audience or how to successfully crowdsource your project.

To be clear, the government, Wikipedia, YouTube, and Minecraft had nothing to do with the failure of any of your products. They don’t owe you anything. I sympathize with your plight, and I’m sorry that your reliance on the predictions many publications made contributed to some of the decisions you made to your detriment, but that’s just how it goes sometimes. Widely-available publications can make predictions that don’t pan out. Crowdsourcing projects sometimes fail. And sometimes products won’t sell or even be noticed. That’s how life and the free market work. You are not guaranteed success in your endeavors. Crowdsourcing doesn’t work for every project, and it’s not going to succeed if no one both knows and is interested in your project.

It sounds like at least one of two things held your project back:

1) You failed to market your project well enough to attract attention, whether it be from possible contributors or future customers. At least part of the problem, based on what others have said, may be that you don’t make clear what your product is actually supposed to do anywhere where your project is visible. I’m not an expert in marketing, so I can’t help you there other than to look at what other crowdsourced projects have done to grab people’s attention and interest.

2) For whatever reason, there just isn’t a market for your product. Not much can be done about that, unfortunately.