Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Curiosity ..

123468

Comments

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,318
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    IMHO it should not matter what your soliciting the funds for, the rules should be the same.
    That is ridiculous. You are comparing a charity to a company. Of course the rules are different... Charities have clear benefits and exclusions in the face of the law, what obviously requires that degree of transparency (and even with charities not all information is of public knowledge)
    Both must equally disclose to the government.

    The legal benefits of a charity is that they don't have to pay tax and donors can write off their donations. The public disclosure is so donors can make informed decisions with their hard earned money.

    With crowdfunding, your being promised something that the recipient of your money is not legally obligated to deliver.

    Disclosure helps to keep the snake population in check.

    My views are with crowdfunding as a whole and not with individual projects.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Hashbrick said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Hashbrick said:
    Erillion said:
    Hashbrick said:
    This is a great resource that is unclouded by bullshit.  https://starcitizentracker.github.io/

    When you look at the completed list and then yet to be implemented/stagnant list it is baffling how little they got done in the years this game has been worked on.  They have a ridiculous amount of money, a ridiculous amount of resources, and yet work slower than an indie dev.
    You are a few months late in discussing that link and why the list there is inaccurate.

    Scroll back a few months in this mmorpg subforum to read dozens of posts on that one.


    Have fun
    Of course any fanboi would fight against such resource, you can call it what you want but it is well documented, even to the point that it is the exact timestamp of a developer video where they talk about the "feature".

    Just know this, your idol likes to run his mouth and talk a big game with very little to show for it.  Is that worth something to stand for? You be you Erillion.

    I can't distinguish which items are Must, Should, and Nice to Haves. Can you point that to me? The difference between you and Erillion is only that you exist on two extremes. Your inability to accept that the truth likely exists somewhere closer to the middle of the two tools shows that you are just as biased. You can reference things until you're blue in the face, but I have never heard of a project manager being held to a quote made by the CEO of a company on what they're speculating the future MIGHT look like. The problem with the source you provide is that they consider everything said in any video or interview to be part of the product specification. That's just not the way it works in the real world. You show me this tool with references to documented features that the developer has committed to developing for their initial release and the tool would look much different. 
    Fair point however, this is Chris Roberts, the internet celebrity, the guy that came back with a wild imagination to the industry to claim his stake in glory once more.  His past accomplishments were only achieved by others that had straighten him out, kept him on course.  I'm not sure that is really there atm it seems like he is running loose and saying whatever he wants to say. He is the mascot and the target of the project to not document the words that come out of his mouth would be very wrong.  When he's sitting on 10 to manager shoot and yelling around about how black holes are going to be in the game then you hold him accountable to such.

    To that end I've been watching this for a very long time, I would like to see it succeed in some form or another but part of me wants to see Chris Roberts in legal trouble so that some law is tied into crowd funded projects such as documentation of where the money is going.  I can guarantee a lot of that money went into fancy things around the office that aren't even part of the game development, or ridiculous high paid salaries just cause they have so much cash to blow through.


    Yeah, I get where you're going. The thing is that most people who are onboard with the project are well aware of CR and his past, and that's actually one of the main reasons they backed it. Honestly, I care more about SQ42 than Star Citizen, but part of me really does want to know whether or not, if given the largest budget in game history, his initial vision for Freelancer could have been realized. I think Star Citizen is as much an exercise in patience as it is a science experiment of nostalgia. 

    You can document what he says all you want, and I think that the goons' tracker does that very well. However, the news agencies hold Trump accountable for his fibs as well, yet he seems to have managed to avoid any sort of accountability, from #MeToo or otherwise, and he's running the fucking FREE WORLD!! 

    I will do you one better on your guarantee. I guarantee that all of the fancy things around the office (that were bought new) came from backer money. It's the only money they're making. That being said, if you're trying to attract talent, it's pretty difficult to do that without having a cool office. That said, some of the things they have done are very low-tech solutions that were blown out of proportion by the Internet. Things like the door or mural. As far as salaries go, I'm of two minds. If CR is as much a tyrant as everyone claims he is, then you'd have to pay people more just to work there. Based on how far the money has stretched, though, it's looking less and less like that's the case. Oh! Also, with the #MeToo movement dinging people right, left, and center, the fact that nobody has stepped forward from CIG is literally shocking to me based on the claims that were made. If there was ever a safe time to come forward, it would be now. 

    As far as success goes, I've said since this project crossed the $100 million mark. I think that this project could be great for the genre or catastrophic for the genre. If you can't make a great MMO from $100 million then it's highly unlikely that any publisher will ever take a risk, even if you have a horrible manager steering the ship. There have just been too many failures in the AAA space in this genre.

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • HashbrickHashbrick Member RarePosts: 1,851
    CrazKanuk said:


    Yeah, I get where you're going. The thing is that most people who are onboard with the project are well aware of CR and his past, and that's actually one of the main reasons they backed it. Honestly, I care more about SQ42 than Star Citizen, but part of me really does want to know whether or not, if given the largest budget in game history, his initial vision for Freelancer could have been realized. I think Star Citizen is as much an exercise in patience as it is a science experiment of nostalgia. 

    You can document what he says all you want, and I think that the goons' tracker does that very well. However, the news agencies hold Trump accountable for his fibs as well, yet he seems to have managed to avoid any sort of accountability, from #MeToo or otherwise, and he's running the fucking FREE WORLD!! 

    I will do you one better on your guarantee. I guarantee that all of the fancy things around the office (that were bought new) came from backer money. It's the only money they're making. That being said, if you're trying to attract talent, it's pretty difficult to do that without having a cool office. That said, some of the things they have done are very low-tech solutions that were blown out of proportion by the Internet. Things like the door or mural. As far as salaries go, I'm of two minds. If CR is as much a tyrant as everyone claims he is, then you'd have to pay people more just to work there. Based on how far the money has stretched, though, it's looking less and less like that's the case. Oh! Also, with the #MeToo movement dinging people right, left, and center, the fact that nobody has stepped forward from CIG is literally shocking to me based on the claims that were made. If there was ever a safe time to come forward, it would be now. 

    As far as success goes, I've said since this project crossed the $100 million mark. I think that this project could be great for the genre or catastrophic for the genre. If you can't make a great MMO from $100 million then it's highly unlikely that any publisher will ever take a risk, even if you have a horrible manager steering the ship. There have just been too many failures in the AAA space in this genre.

    I understand your side, good points.  I do think you are right in CR's mind this is an experiment of doing whatever he wants as long as the money keeps piling in. I won't get into politics and social media so we'll just leave it as that. 
    [[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button.  Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    IMHO it should not matter what your soliciting the funds for, the rules should be the same.
    That is ridiculous. You are comparing a charity to a company. Of course the rules are different... Charities have clear benefits and exclusions in the face of the law, what obviously requires that degree of transparency (and even with charities not all information is of public knowledge)
    In Canada all facets of a charity is visible to anyone who wishes to look it up including income, expenses and the breakdown of how they spent their money be it wages, charitable programs or administrative costs. That’s the type of transparency any Kickstarter business should be having since they are taking money from the public


    laserit
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited February 2018
    Kefo said:
    In Canada all facets of a charity is visible to anyone who wishes to look it up including income, expenses and the breakdown of how they spent their money be it wages, charitable programs or administrative costs. That’s the type of transparency any Kickstarter business should be having since they are taking money from the public
    Not in here.

    There are far bigger problems than crowfunding, and crowdfunding has implications that are clear when it comes to money, you are not entitled to that information neither do you have control over the money you have put in, because you are no legal investor, in the face of law Kickstarter is still put as a consumer > company perspective.

    I'm more worried about the higher leads of charities and non-profit political fundations, and even religions that do take legal donations, do get money literally free of taxes, and from sudden appear with mansions and abuses of such setups (that are amazingly legal!). Now that yes are things that should be dealt with, and aren't, Kickstarter for me is a superficial issue, far bigger points where we need legal improvement on transparency over money that is gotten from the public in the shape of donations that people should be pushing for.

    For now, in the reality of KS, if you want the same degree of access and information as you would get if you were a legal investor, then you better buy some shares of the related company if possible and that should get you there.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,972
    Except what you are looking at as far as numbers go is most likely 99% of the time as much BS as game developers and their businesses.

    If ANYONE thinks a charity is non profit,you need your head examined.
    transparency,yes you are 100% correct there,a developer taking money from gamer's to build their game SHOULD make every last dollar and accounting ledger known to remove any doubt of deceit and scams...lying.

    By not doing so means you have something to hide,you are NOT on the up and up.I said it from day 1 of ever seeing a KS'r game,you as a gamer have no idea what so ever if they already have the funds and investors and are just jacking you for free money for no other reason than you are an easy target to deceive.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,537
    edited February 2018
    Debating the morality or legality of it is irrelevant in the end.  Accounting is a man-made artificial construct created for specific reasons and purposes.  Like I said, there's a reason why financial statements exist in the first place.  Several reasons, actually, but the relevant one here is that without it, you have no idea what's actually being done with the money or if it's being abused or misused or the cause is hopeless, most of which can be generally lumped together as "At this rate, is this a sound investment which can produce the results I want for my money?"

    As it is, without access to financial information, the backers providing the money are relying entirely on faith instead of data that their money will produce the intended result.  Well, like I said, I'm sure they'll learn the hard way how well that works soon enough.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    MaxBacon said:
    Kefo said:
    In Canada all facets of a charity is visible to anyone who wishes to look it up including income, expenses and the breakdown of how they spent their money be it wages, charitable programs or administrative costs. That’s the type of transparency any Kickstarter business should be having since they are taking money from the public
    Not in here.

    There are far bigger problems than crowfunding, and crowdfunding has implications that are clear when it comes to money, you are not entitled to that information neither do you have control over the money you have put in, because you are no legal investor, in the face of law Kickstarter is still put as a consumer > company perspective.

    I'm more worried about the higher leads of charities and non-profit political fundations, and even religions that do take legal donations, do get money literally free of taxes, and from sudden appear with mansions and abuses of such setups (that are amazingly legal!). Now that yes are things that should be dealt with, and aren't, Kickstarter for me is a superficial issue, far bigger points where we need legal improvement on transparency over money that is gotten from the public in the shape of donations that people should be pushing for.

    For now, in the reality of KS, if you want the same degree of access and information as you would get if you were a legal investor, then you better buy some shares of the related company if possible and that should get you there.
    No need for shares, but the failings of a related system don't excuse failings of this one.

    If both need change in regards to accountability, both need change.  There is no need to prioritize when both can fall under the purview of government to improve the equity of the situation.

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited February 2018
    No need for shares, but the failings of a related system don't excuse failings of this one.

    If both need change in regards to accountability, both need change.  There is no need to prioritize when both can fall under the purview of government to improve the equity of the situation.
    If people cared about real issues like they care about videogame internet drama, dear lord we would have gotten so much done by now... But that'll never happen and we all know it the priorities are messy sideways.

    For crowdfunding to change, then it must stop being a consumer > company relationship, what runs the risk of losing consumer protections, for legally impose that transparency. We would be talking about moving crowdfund to something more like one "Investor > Company" relationship where you gamble your money not to make more money but to get the product the company is liable to.

    Investing is a gamble and crowdfunding relates to it, BUT as in investments, there are regulations against scams and abuses, what evens it out (and crowdfunding hasn't properly been immune to it either in the face of the same ones all other companies are ruled by).
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited February 2018
    Tiamat64 said:
    Debating the morality or legality of it is irrelevant in the end.  Accounting is a man-made artificial construct created for specific reasons and purposes.  Like I said, there's a reason why financial statements exist in the first place.  Several reasons, actually, but the relevant one here is that without it, you have no idea what's actually being done with the money or if it's being abused or misused or the cause is hopeless, most of which can be generally lumped together as "At this rate, is this a sound investment which can produce the results I want for my money?"

    As it is, without access to financial information, the backers providing the money are relying entirely on faith instead of data that their money will produce the intended result.  Well, like I said, I'm sure they'll learn the hard way how well that works soon enough.
    Are you suggesting that CiG have a good grasp of what the game will cost / cost to complte?

    If yes you are relying on faith that they are right. They hope they have an idea but .....

    Lets say they published a statement and it said it cost X to do Y and they deemed that reasonable how would you know? Believe them on faith? Compare it to figures for a comparable game? Oh wait even if one existed big companies rarely don't publish that data at an individual game level. And that's before you get into the issue of how you classify things on a statement, how you assign overheads and marketing and so forth.

    In fact why would you even believe them if they said "we have raised $X".

    Put simply for a financial statement to be useful you would have to "believe" in what CiG produced. On faith. And if you didn't have faith the financial statement wonuldn't help.

    I suggest most backers / game buyers actually don't "care" in the sense of "is this a sound investment". Even if they have been trained to read financial statements properly. They don't care whether a game costs $10M, $100M or $500M. They care about graphics; gameplay; framerates. They hope they will I get the game for their c. $80 average (or whatever the average pledge is these days) in what they consider is a "reasonable time". And those facts - is it a good game for me - are subjective. (Unlike investments.)

    To that end what really matters is the alpha.

    The alpha is a demonstration of work being done. If its not in the alpha no amount of hype will change the fact that its not done. Conversely if its in the alpha no amount doomsaying will change the fact that its done. Whether it has been produced in the most cost effective way - whilst taking into account the demands of setting up an organisation to make it and budget for unknown investment flow ..... even if you had the cost you wouldn't know whether the money had been well spent. And I have been involved in setting up multi-continent organisations. 

    Which is possibly why most of the early responses in this thread - to someone asking about SC - were along the lines of "wait until the next free fly weekend and see if you like it". 

    And to remember that it is a crowdfunded project with all the uncertainty that goes with it. 


    Post edited by gervaise1 on
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited February 2018
    gervaise1 said:
    I suggest most backers / game buyers actually don't "care" in the sense of "is this a sound investment". Even if they have been trained to read financial statements properly. They don't care whether a game costs $10M, $100M or $500M. They care about graphics; gameplay; framerates. They hope they will I get the game for their c. $80 average (or whatever the average pledge is these days) in what they consider is a "reasonable time". And those facts - is it a good game for me - are subjective. (Unlike investments.)
    Yup that exactly the main point, the financial report is not what reassures people about "this is a solid investment", it's the actual released alpha and display of the progress of the product they bought that does.

    This is why I always saw this as a petty argument, it won't change anything here, but it can catch proper scams in crowdfunding if enforced.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Wizardry said:
    Except what you are looking at as far as numbers go is most likely 99% of the time as much BS as game developers and their businesses.

    If ANYONE thinks a charity is non profit,you need your head examined.
    transparency,yes you are 100% correct there,a developer taking money from gamer's to build their game SHOULD make every last dollar and accounting ledger known to remove any doubt of deceit and scams...lying.

    By not doing so means you have something to hide,you are NOT on the up and up.I said it from day 1 of ever seeing a KS'r game,you as a gamer have no idea what so ever if they already have the funds and investors and are just jacking you for free money for no other reason than you are an easy target to deceive.
    Lol oh I know most charities are not non profit. When you search some charities and see the salary range for a full time employee in the 250k+ range you start to scratch your head lol
  • penandpaperpenandpaper Member UncommonPosts: 174
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Erillion said:
    >>>
    Again, it has nothing to do with private or public.  It has to do with transparency.  And when you take over 100 million dollars of other people's money, then you should be transparent.  Hence: "Hey guys, we'd like you to know we spent another 400,000 hiring two more programmers.  There names are John and Sally.  They will be helping us with the planetary systems and bug decoding."
    >>>

    Me seems you have missed A LOT of monthly SC reports, where "John and Sally" have been introduced time and time again in the studio reports.

    Me seems you have never seen a "Jump Point" Magazine where the teams were introduced in many-page detail, in their own words.

    Me seems you have missed A LOT of "Dev Talk" and "Dev Happy Hour" v-blogs, where various employees have been introduced.

    Me seems you have missed A LOT of the "10 Questions to XXX" (XXX not being the Chairman) where even more people were talking.

    Me seems you may want to check on the CIG/RSI/Foundry job ads, were new people are being searched for ... and people ask the company about it (e.g. LinkedIn) and get answers.


    So ... CIG has been doing that for years ... but you seem to be not aware of it.


    Have fun
    Just like EQNext did, right?

    I want him to publish accurate numbers that can be backed up by tax filings.  That's all.  That is transparency.  


    Well you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and I'll bet I can predict which will fill up first. 

    Your idea of transparency is unrealistic. You show me a handful of game companies with the level of transparency that you're talking about. See, the nice thing about transparency is that is what we call a moving goalpost. I tell you what you want to hear, and then you tell me I'm not being completely transparent because I'm hiding the truth about my waist size. Honestly, it's arguments like this one you're making that actually retards the transparency movement because who the FUCK in their right mind would want to claim to be transparent when you've got people with ridiculously distorted perspectives of what that should look like? Honestly, comments like these do NOTHING to progress the transparency movement in game development. 

    One, I'm stealing you hand quote - hilarious!

    Two, I don't want transparency for other game companies.  Know why?  Because the games I buy are funded by the company, not the public.  That is the difference.  I can log into my city's budget and see where all the money goes.  Why?  Because we fund them.  I can go to public records and find out how much our local library spent on every little thing: books, computers, a new roof.  Know why?  The public funds them.  I asked for documentation of number of employees and the resources used for them.  That's what I have asked for this entire post.  I said without it, it is easy to hide.  So moving goalposts I am not.

    Now, if you want to make the differentiation between publicly funded and publicly invested, I would listen, and most likely, agree.  

    But transparency implies exactly that - being transparent, especially about investing and spending.  I suppose It also applies to game dynamics.  But, that's a different debate.  


    So maybe this is the sticking point. You're not wrong. However, regardless of how they're funded, this is a private company. So we're talking about government organizations which are publicly funded through taxes (non-voluntary) versus a company which is a private entity with zero responsibility to the public, which is publicly funded using donations (voluntary). 

    Regardless of the funding, though, we're talking about a vast difference in the level of responsibility. We aren't even talking about public COMPANY versus private COMPANY. We're talking about government agencies versus a private company. I mean, I love the tangent that you're trying to draw, but it just isn't realistic. Let me ask you this, so do you feel that any company that takes a loan from the government, or bank, or any agency should be required to be open with their books and fully-transparent with the public? I don't, but that's essentially what you're asking for. 

    I think that the biggest thing to remember is that when you crowdfund something, you're not investing in that company, they aren't a publicly-traded company, you are giving your money to Joe and Joe is going to do with your money what Joe wants and, generally speaking, he doesn't have a legal responsibility to you at all, except to try to deliver what he said he was going to deliver, whether that's potato salad or a video game. 

    So the fact that a company like CIG publishes how much money they're making is actually about as transparent as it gets. Let's face facts, how many arguments are rooted in how much money they've made versus what they've delivered? How much of a headache as that caused them? Can you appreciate how they might not want to be any more transparent? 

    More than a fair argument.  I think you are correct.  

    Regarding bank loans: A business who receives a loan from a bank or government institution opens its books to the bank/government - the people that loaned them the money.  That is all I am asking from SC.  The backers loaned them the money - show them the books.  That is the tangential line I drew.  Yes, not perfectly straight, but just because it's looped does not mean it's incorrect.  

    Now, does SC have to do this?  No.  If they turn out a version of pong, do they have to give the money back?  No.  Does Kickstarter have anything to do with their money, refunds, etc.?  No.  All these things are true.  Yet, there is a side of people that want to see it changed.  I simply think that this game might be a turning point.  (A small one.)

    As for sexual harassment (not at you KrazKanuk), who said Sig sexually harassed employees.  I have never seen anyone ever say that.  They hinted at other things.  Paid things.  Amsterdam things.  Not employees.      
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,318
    @penandpaper ;

    The government doesn't have to loan you money in order for you to open your books. If they think your screwing them for revenue, the will be send their auditors over lickity split. In Canada you have to keep the last six years of records and they'll spend weeks/months or years going over them if need be.

    They even pick businesses at random for audits and you can't refuse. They go over everything, bills at the hardware store etc. etc. I had an audit about ten years ago and had to cough up another 90k.

    Bastards ;)

    I personally can't understand why people would argue against disclosure with crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is too open to abuse.

    Crowdfunding period, whether your making a game or making a toaster.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,485
    laserit said:


    I personally can't understand why people would argue against disclosure with crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is too open to abuse.

    To reveal the truth would threaten the faith which so carefully sustains them, so better to turn a blind eye.


    Turrican187IceAge

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    CrazKanuk said:



    So maybe this is the sticking point. You're not wrong. However, regardless of how they're funded, this is a private company. So we're talking about government organizations which are publicly funded through taxes (non-voluntary) versus a company which is a private entity with zero responsibility to the public, which is publicly funded using donations (voluntary). 

    Regardless of the funding, though, we're talking about a vast difference in the level of responsibility. We aren't even talking about public COMPANY versus private COMPANY. We're talking about government agencies versus a private company. I mean, I love the tangent that you're trying to draw, but it just isn't realistic. Let me ask you this, so do you feel that any company that takes a loan from the government, or bank, or any agency should be required to be open with their books and fully-transparent with the public? I don't, but that's essentially what you're asking for. 

    I think that the biggest thing to remember is that when you crowdfund something, you're not investing in that company, they aren't a publicly-traded company, you are giving your money to Joe and Joe is going to do with your money what Joe wants and, generally speaking, he doesn't have a legal responsibility to you at all, except to try to deliver what he said he was going to deliver, whether that's potato salad or a video game. 

    So the fact that a company like CIG publishes how much money they're making is actually about as transparent as it gets. Let's face facts, how many arguments are rooted in how much money they've made versus what they've delivered? How much of a headache as that caused them? Can you appreciate how they might not want to be any more transparent? 

    More than a fair argument.  I think you are correct.  

    Regarding bank loans: A business who receives a loan from a bank or government institution opens its books to the bank/government - the people that loaned them the money.  That is all I am asking from SC.  The backers loaned them the money - show them the books.  That is the tangential line I drew.  Yes, not perfectly straight, but just because it's looped does not mean it's incorrect.  

    Now, does SC have to do this?  No.  If they turn out a version of pong, do they have to give the money back?  No.  Does Kickstarter have anything to do with their money, refunds, etc.?  No.  All these things are true.  Yet, there is a side of people that want to see it changed.  I simply think that this game might be a turning point.  (A small one.)

    As for sexual harassment (not at you KrazKanuk), who said Sig sexually harassed employees.  I have never seen anyone ever say that.  They hinted at other things.  Paid things.  Amsterdam things.  Not employees.      


    Good point. The main difference between the government or bank knowing your business and a backer is confidentiality, meaning the Internet is really shitty at keeping secrets. It's also really shitty at logic. However, it is really good at "The sky is falling" conspiracy theories. That is why I'd generally say that you don't tell anyone in the public about the inner workings of your company. 

    If the government wants to legislate that, great! I love data, so I'd be open to that. In the end, though, I really couldn't care less about what people are making or how they are spending their money, as long as they produce something worthy of my dollar. 

    As for the harassment thing, I believe that there were a few claims in the original Escapist articles that would easily be considered sexual harassment. It was initially wrote off as "Well, if you speak out, then nobody will hire you." However, with the massive backlash from females in the gaming industry over the Nolan Bushnell Pioneer award, and the subsequent rescinding of that award just goes to show a much different picture. Especially with some of the stuff that some from the industry had said. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited February 2018
     

    <snip>  The backers loaned them the money <snip>    
    Did they?

    Serious - and one of the key - questions. 

    If they are investors who have loaned money then one set of laws applies - depending which countries are involved. And some rights are provided - probably not as much as you think but some rights.

    If they are investors though they are not consumers and have not bought anything. 

    If they are consumers though they have no more right to "see the books" than they would have to e.g. see Zenimax's books if they bought a copy of ESO. (Legal opinion seems to be tending towards backers being consumers but its not clear.)

    (There's another key question about the status of the entity raising the money as well.) 

    As I have said before - unless there is out and out fraud involved - the legal framework around crowdfunding is still "fuzzy". 
  • penandpaperpenandpaper Member UncommonPosts: 174
    gervaise1 said:
     

    <snip>  The backers loaned them the money <snip>    
    Did they?

    Serious - and one of the key - questions. 

    If they are investors who have loaned money then one set of laws applies - depending which countries are involved. And some rights are provided - probably not as much as you think but some rights.

    If they are investors though they are not consumers and have not bought anything. 

    If they are consumers though they have no more right to "see the books" than they would have to e.g. see Zenimax's books if they bought a copy of ESO. (Legal opinion seems to be tending towards backers being consumers but its not clear.)

    (There's another key question about the status of the entity raising the money as well.) 

    As I have said before - unless there is out and out fraud involved - the legal framework around crowdfunding is still "fuzzy". 

    Well that is a good point, and one I did not consider.  Are the pledgers investors or simply consumers.  I was looking at them more as investors.  But, this is a great point.  What if, by pledging, you received nothing but a profit of the game or toy or whatever else is on Kickstarter?  Then, the people get their money back (maybe), and maybe they get double their money back and can buy the game with it.  :)

    @CrazyKanuk: I did not know about the Escapist claims.  So my bad.  
  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    gervaise1 said:
     

    <snip>  The backers loaned them the money <snip>    
    Did they?

    Serious - and one of the key - questions. 

    If they are investors who have loaned money then one set of laws applies - depending which countries are involved. And some rights are provided - probably not as much as you think but some rights.

    If they are investors though they are not consumers and have not bought anything. 

    If they are consumers though they have no more right to "see the books" than they would have to e.g. see Zenimax's books if they bought a copy of ESO. (Legal opinion seems to be tending towards backers being consumers but its not clear.)

    (There's another key question about the status of the entity raising the money as well.) 

    As I have said before - unless there is out and out fraud involved - the legal framework around crowdfunding is still "fuzzy". 

    Well that is a good point, and one I did not consider.  Are the pledgers investors or simply consumers.  I was looking at them more as investors.  But, this is a great point.  What if, by pledging, you received nothing but a profit of the game or toy or whatever else is on Kickstarter?  Then, the people get their money back (maybe), and maybe they get double their money back and can buy the game with it.  :)

    @CrazyKanuk: I did not know about the Escapist claims.  So my bad.  
    Regarding to EU and AUS law they are 100% consumers.  Don't know how it works out in USA

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member RarePosts: 1,587
    gervaise1 said:
     

    <snip>  The backers loaned them the money <snip>    
    Did they?

    Serious - and one of the key - questions. 

    If they are investors who have loaned money then one set of laws applies - depending which countries are involved. And some rights are provided - probably not as much as you think but some rights.

    If they are investors though they are not consumers and have not bought anything. 

    If they are consumers though they have no more right to "see the books" than they would have to e.g. see Zenimax's books if they bought a copy of ESO. (Legal opinion seems to be tending towards backers being consumers but its not clear.)

    (There's another key question about the status of the entity raising the money as well.) 

    As I have said before - unless there is out and out fraud involved - the legal framework around crowdfunding is still "fuzzy". 

    Well that is a good point, and one I did not consider.  Are the pledgers investors or simply consumers.  I was looking at them more as investors.  But, this is a great point.  What if, by pledging, you received nothing but a profit of the game or toy or whatever else is on Kickstarter?  Then, the people get their money back (maybe), and maybe they get double their money back and can buy the game with it.  :)

    @CrazyKanuk: I did not know about the Escapist claims.  So my bad.  
    Regarding to EU and AUS law they are 100% consumers.  Don't know how it works out in USA
    The Federal Trade Commission stepped in and forced CiG to give refunds so yea, they're consumers in the USA too.

    That's why there are a ton of "I've successfully gotten my refund!" stories (even if it sometimes takes months of CiG stalling) compared to the nonexistance of people being completely denied their refunds so long as they put up with the stalling.  No matter what CiG's ToS says and their efforts to update it to paint the backers as non-consumers, the law is pretty clear on these sorts of things and trumps the ToS, and CiG knows this (after learning it the hard way). Doesn't stop them from trying to scare people away from asking for a refund with ToS changes, of course.
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited February 2018
    TiamatRoar said:
    No matter what CiG's ToS says and their efforts to update it to paint the backers as non-consumers, the law is pretty clear on these sorts of things and trumps the ToS.
    Unless you're Valve.

    Of course, they eventually have given in partially, was amazing how long their strict ToS stood.

    In fact, I think they ask their EU costumers to waive their legal 14 days right to refund right when you purchased something. They still do, they make you waive your right so they can put up their own policy (hence why the ToS 2h policy is enforceable).
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,235
    The Federal Trade Commission stepped in and forced CiG to give refunds so yea, they're consumers in the USA too.

    That's why there are a ton of "I've successfully gotten my refund!" stories (even if it sometimes takes months of CiG stalling) compared to the nonexistance of people being completely denied their refunds so long as they put up with the stalling.  No matter what CiG's ToS says and their efforts to update it to paint the backers as non-consumers, the law is pretty clear on these sorts of things and trumps the ToS, and CiG knows this (after learning it the hard way). Doesn't stop them from trying to scare people away from asking for a refund with ToS changes, of course.
    Funny that you skip over the fact that CIG was giving refunds without fuss for three years, making it sounds as if CIG never voluntarily gave refunds.

    One might expect that people have made up their mind after three years whether they want a game or not.


    Have fun

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    MaxBacon said:
    TiamatRoar said:
    No matter what CiG's ToS says and their efforts to update it to paint the backers as non-consumers, the law is pretty clear on these sorts of things and trumps the ToS.
    Unless you're Valve.

    Of course, they eventually have given in partially, was amazing how long their strict ToS stood.

    In fact, I think they ask their EU costumers to waive their legal 14 days right to refund right when you purchased something. They still do, they make you waive your right so they can put up their own policy (hence why the ToS 2h policy is enforceable).
    There is no 14 days Law for released digital products in the EU. Don't spread fake news please.

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited February 2018
    There is no 14 days Law for released digital products in the EU. Don't spread fake news please.
    The EU’s Directive on Consumer Rights;

    Section 19 states, “… For such contracts [referring to digital content not supplied on tangible mediums], the consumer should have a right of withdrawal unless he has consented to the beginning of the performance of the contract during the withdrawal period and has acknowledged that he will consequently lose the right to withdraw from the contract.”

    And this what Steam does, you legally waive your right to withdraw (refund) from the moment of the purchase, from that moment you have no right to refund, what Steam does is put their own policy in place because legally you don't have that right anymore.

    For all it applies here, in digital products, everyone seems to play by the 14 days (digital products must be covered by the withdrawn period by law so something must be there about it), but that EU directive still rules.

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    MaxBacon said:
    There is no 14 days Law for released digital products in the EU. Don't spread fake news please.
    The EU’s Directive on Consumer Rights;

    Section 19 states, “… For such contracts [referring to digital content not supplied on tangible mediums], the consumer should have a right of withdrawal unless he has consented to the beginning of the performance of the contract during the withdrawal period and has acknowledged that he will consequently lose the right to withdraw from the contract.”

    And this what Steam does, you legally waive your right to withdraw (refund) from the moment of the purchase, from that moment you have no right to refund, what Steam does is put their own policy in place because legally you don't have that right anymore, that is a very smart loophole Valve found.

    For all it applies here, in digital products, everyone seems to play by the 14 days (digital products must be covered by the withdrawn period by law so something must be there about it), but that EU directive still rules.
    ermh this is just a amendment the actual law says:

    Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Text with EEA relevance
    (which includes your amendment BTW)

    Updated : 31/01/2018

    14 days to cancel and return purchases made outside shops (online, by phone or mail order)

    In the EU you have the right to return these purchases within 14 days for a full refund. You can do so for any reason – even if you simply changed your mind.

    The 14-day "cooling off" period does not apply to all purchases. Some of the exemptions are:

    • plane and train tickets, as well as concert tickets, hotel bookings, car rental reservations and catering services for specific dates
    • goods and drinks delivered to you by regular delivery – for example delivery by a milkman.
    • goods made to order or clearly personalised – such as a tailor-made suit
    • sealed audio, video or computer software, such as DVDs, which you have unsealed upon receipt.
    • online digital content, if you have already started downloading or streaming it
    • goods bought from a private individual rather than a company
    • urgent repairs and maintenance contracts – if you call a plumber to repair a leaking shower, you can't cancel the work once you have agreed on the price of the service.
    gervaise1

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

Sign In or Register to comment.