It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Well, truthfully now that I think about it, I don't see why Amazon would want the game. It's clearly a slip shod buggy piece of mess right now and the game is around a hundred million or more "in-debt" to its backers. Those ships and plots of land that those backers brought aren't going to form into existence by themselves. Taking over Star Citizen would also mean taking over its obligations and it has a LOT of friggin' obligations now.rodarin said:OMG what if there is a settlement and the settlements only condition is Chris Roberts and all his cronies have to leave SC and then let Amazon hire some other people to fix it...deja vu all over again. now THAT would be frigging epic.Tiamat64 said:Whether or not CiG is guilty, it'd be stupid of Amazon to butt in. That's like saying, "Hey, use our free software and we'll help you out with litigation if you're lucrative enough!"
There's also the question of whether or not Star Citizen actually IS lucrative enough. It's not like Amazon is going to be sharing in any of Star Citizen's profits nor do they need the exposure and publicity, because they're Amazon. At most Star Citizen just gives them more advertising revenue from ads, which needs to be weighed against the cost of the lawsuit (and again, any cans of worms they might get for being known as a company that will help out other companies with litigation just because they're using Amazon's free software).
And even if they DO butt in, they aren't going to do it pro-bono. They're not a charity. Quite the opposite, in fact. VERY VERY MUCH the opposite. I don't think it'd sit well with either the backers or Chris Roberts himself if Amazon suddenly had a controlling interest in the game.
There's also the matter of how much Amazon actually CAN help anyways. What are they going to do, threaten to back out of their lumberyard deal with Crytek this late in the game? That'd be horrible for both of them and would tell all of Amazon's business partners (you know, the ones in ACTUAL business deals with them, unlike Star Citizen), "Hey, we'll push you around just because you got into a legal argument with someone who's using our free software!"
Amazon and Star Citizen are NOT super best friends. They're more like acquaintances. If anything, Amazon's probably bigger friends with Crytek. At most, from the interviews I've been reading regarding the switch to Lumberyard, Star Citizen's people are just "in contact" with Amazon from time to time. Crytek is the one that Amazon's got an actual business deal for the lumberyard software from in the first place (that Star Citizen relies on anyways!). Who should they side with if forced to (and assuming neither party was found guilty yet)? The guys they dealt with to get a huge engine from or the guys that are using that engine for free? (although the true correct answer would be "Neither. It's none of your business. LITERALLY.")
Charities are required to provide financial statements to their donors to make sure they're spending the money responsibly. Large crowd funded ventures are only exempt from this because crowd funding is a new concept and the law hasn't gotten around to them yet, and it probably won't until a major disaster happens.IsilithTehroth said:They really need to hold people that "donate" to a games production accountability. Seems like all these kickstarter mmos are just cash grabs that promise the world, dont deliver and end of selling things before they even have concept art made.
I'm pretty sure you're only legally an investor if you actually get to benefit from the profits somehow (and that's not the only requirement)Daranar said:At $25k it's not longer just a simple refund of a game purchase and this clown should know it. At $25k you are an investor and you don't just simply pull out your money unless both parties agreed to those terms before the investment.