I think it's about time for some actual legislature specifically designed for crowdfunding. That way there's no confusion over refunds, accountability or anything else pertaining to crowd backed funding.
I think it's actually an education thing over a legislation thing. What seems obvious to some obviously isn't to others. I think a lot of it boils down to perspective. I think there is, routinely, a lot of noise from those outside looking in. These people would NEVER back a crowdfunded game, and they're quite content to tell you that. However, they're also the noisiest. What you tend to hear much less frequently are those who backed a crowdfunded game and want a refund. SC might be the first time I've actually seen that, and I think that's due to it's size more than anything else. So I really don't think there's a need for legislation.
There are PLENTY of crowdfunded games which are "past due", but there is often little more than an idle hum about it. Again, SC is just amplified due to its size.
Honestly, I really don't think there is that much confusion over refunds at all. Those who are in, get it, those who are out, get it, and that's why they're out! I mean if they weren't aware of it, why would they continuously talk about risk? There is obviously perceived risk of losing their money, so they obviously know they can't get a refund.
Planet Explorers still hasn't released over 2 years later now and it's just a single player / multi-player coop building game. It's not even an mmo.
I don't think we need legislation either. PayPal has already changed their service agreement to clearly state that engaging in this sort of thing is at your own risk.
The only legislation I would like to see are criminal/civil penalties when gross negligence has shown that a company hasn't even attempted to create and fulfill their project.
Or a big-ass pop-up saying "If this is successful, you're money is gone! OK/No Thanks"
The whole idea of crowdfunding is seeing something that you REALLY want to experience. Right now I'm waiting on Shards Online, Torment, Battle Chasers, Bards Tale 4. I THINK Torment is behind, and maybe Shards. However, I don't really care, because I backed them because it's something I want, so I'm in no rush to get my hands on it. I'd rather the experience be as close to my expectation as possible.
The money they gathered was to develop the game, not to develop their company, you would normally do this with the profits from a successful release.
I agree with that.
It is my understanding that the reason for having a bunch of separate companies was to a) take advantage of big tax breaks (---> UK) b) be near a bunch of engine experts (--> Germany) c) be near a bunch of big name actors for mo-cap and performance-cap (--> LA) d) be near a bunch of industry experts (--> Austin) e) be able to work almost 24 hours over different timezones
Have fun
You forgot to add this:
f) allow Roberts to stroke his big swollen ego
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I think it's about time for some actual legislature specifically designed for crowdfunding. That way there's no confusion over refunds, accountability or anything else pertaining to crowd backed funding.
I think it's actually an education thing over a legislation thing. What seems obvious to some obviously isn't to others. I think a lot of it boils down to perspective. I think there is, routinely, a lot of noise from those outside looking in. These people would NEVER back a crowdfunded game, and they're quite content to tell you that. However, they're also the noisiest. What you tend to hear much less frequently are those who backed a crowdfunded game and want a refund. SC might be the first time I've actually seen that, and I think that's due to it's size more than anything else. So I really don't think there's a need for legislation.
There are PLENTY of crowdfunded games which are "past due", but there is often little more than an idle hum about it. Again, SC is just amplified due to its size.
Honestly, I really don't think there is that much confusion over refunds at all. Those who are in, get it, those who are out, get it, and that's why they're out! I mean if they weren't aware of it, why would they continuously talk about risk? There is obviously perceived risk of losing their money, so they obviously know they can't get a refund.
Planet Explorers still hasn't released over 2 years later now and it's just a single player / multi-player coop building game. It's not even an mmo.
I don't think we need legislation either. PayPal has already changed their service agreement to clearly state that engaging in this sort of thing is at your own risk.
The only legislation I would like to see are criminal/civil penalties when gross negligence has shown that a company hasn't even attempted to create and fulfill their project.
Or a big-ass pop-up saying "If this is successful, you're money is gone! OK/No Thanks"
The whole idea of crowdfunding is seeing something that you REALLY want to experience. Right now I'm waiting on Shards Online, Torment, Battle Chasers, Bards Tale 4. I THINK Torment is behind, and maybe Shards. However, I don't really care, because I backed them because it's something I want, so I'm in no rush to get my hands on it. I'd rather the experience be as close to my expectation as possible.
I tend to agree with you on Kickstarter and other such crowdfunding organizations. You put your money in, you take your chances. As long as a good faith effort is made to deliver. Which is obviously the case for SC.
Of course, if they did include refunds as an option; well that's the bed they made, and they'll have to flop on it.
The later stuff from CiG, sales of Spaceships/Jpgs, etc: If they are not being legally treated as donations (which I understand they are NOT), then they aren't donations. It just seems to be commercially useful for them for the distinction to be vague.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I think it's about time for some actual legislature specifically designed for crowdfunding. That way there's no confusion over refunds, accountability or anything else pertaining to crowd backed funding.
I think it's actually an education thing over a legislation thing. What seems obvious to some obviously isn't to others. I think a lot of it boils down to perspective. I think there is, routinely, a lot of noise from those outside looking in. These people would NEVER back a crowdfunded game, and they're quite content to tell you that. However, they're also the noisiest. What you tend to hear much less frequently are those who backed a crowdfunded game and want a refund. SC might be the first time I've actually seen that, and I think that's due to it's size more than anything else. So I really don't think there's a need for legislation.
There are PLENTY of crowdfunded games which are "past due", but there is often little more than an idle hum about it. Again, SC is just amplified due to its size.
Honestly, I really don't think there is that much confusion over refunds at all. Those who are in, get it, those who are out, get it, and that's why they're out! I mean if they weren't aware of it, why would they continuously talk about risk? There is obviously perceived risk of losing their money, so they obviously know they can't get a refund.
Planet Explorers still hasn't released over 2 years later now and it's just a single player / multi-player coop building game. It's not even an mmo.
I don't think we need legislation either. PayPal has already changed their service agreement to clearly state that engaging in this sort of thing is at your own risk.
The only legislation I would like to see are criminal/civil penalties when gross negligence has shown that a company hasn't even attempted to create and fulfill their project.
edit - Torval's post got me thinking about companies that have proven track records of commiting fraud against backers and your thoughts and actions against a known quantity.
If there is "true" concern and outrage over questionable crowdfunding by your group of "activists" in the name of consumer's rights and fraud prevention, crusaders such as yourselves have a plethora of existing companies and titles that have openly and clearly violated consumer's trust and money in using crowdfunding as a charade to commit fraud.
I assume it is a very important issue to you as shown in your almost fanatical posting about SC. Why not fight for the rights of people who have been proven to be victims? If you have done this please post links for reference because I would be very interested to see how your progress is fairing against proven fraudsters. Myself and probably other members of this community would like to see the impact you are making against those who have used crowdfunding as an instrument of deception.
If this is not the case, I might be inclined to think this is just attention seeking through negative means.
I would like to think you really want to bring fraud and abuse of crowdfunding to light instead of just a cheap hipster way to seek attention.
I'm sure they need that money to install more of those cool looking sliding doors :awesome:
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
And this my friends is why I stopped buying crowd funding games or buying games as a Founder. Star Citizen put the brakes on everything and other more honest games have to suffer for teh bad rap they gave to all kinds of early access.
And this my friends is why I stopped buying crowd funding games or buying games as a Founder. Star Citizen put the brakes on everything and other more honest games have to suffer for teh bad rap they gave to all kinds of early access.
Interesting enough ... where IS your bad rep ?
The mainstream gaming media still sing the high praise song about Star Citizen, with a slight caveat that CIG has taken its sweet time. Millions watch SC fan-made and company-made Youtube videos.
Some fringe groups like the Goons weeping salty tears do not a bad reputation make.
"While quite a lot of the promised gameplay is now available, we
acknowledge that delivery of some game elements has been delayed. This
is a direct result of the community’s declared desire to have the
initial release version of the game developed to a much greater depth,
detail, and fidelity than contemplated originally upon start of the
campaign. "
And now everyone knows what was the purpose of their poll made in the earlier days through one of their comm-links. A poll that mislead customers to believe that as more money they had, faster they would get the core of the game.
"Finally there is one very important element – the more funds we can
raise in the pre-launch phase, the more we can invest in additional
content (more ships, characters etc.) and perhaps more importantly we
can apply greater number of resources to the various tasks to ensure we
deliver the full functionality sooner rather than later."
"There has been some concern about “feature creep” with the additional
stretch goals. You should all know that we carefully consider the goals
we announce. " "But both types of goals are carefully considered — we don’t commit to
adding features that would hold up the game’s ability to go “live” in a
fully functional state. "
A poll that could be voted by anyone, backers and non-backers, duplicate accounts, etc. And "community" was not even part of the deal. Of the TOS. There is no deal between a company and a community. There is a deal between the company and the individual backer.
I wonder if CIG could show us all in what clause in their TOS states that in case the "community" asking, they could break such deal made between the company and the individual backer, but, curiously, at the same time, enforcing the same broke deal, by an unilateral decision of the company, backed up by a totally invalid pool, to deny refund to the individual backer? I wonder if in the TOS, its even defined what is "community"?
Just this argument is enough to thrown their TOS, their only matter of defense in a court of law, in the garbage. TOS tossed, and requiring them to give refunds to anyone who ask, based on such situation and bad faith demonstrated.
Notice, that they promised in their TOS to deliver the game BEFORE or in the estimated delivery date, which was Nov 2014 originally, and that IT IS IN THE TOS that they would use of good faith efforts to achieve that.
just reveals their bad faith on trying to deceive their customers.
And what was proven here, by this simple logic/argument, is that they used of bad faith, a farse of a poll to justify a decision, which is NOT an unforeseen event, but instead, just a decision.
Besides, they are proceeding with this development not without bringing more revenue to it, that they wouldn't have if having delivered the game. It's easy to prove because they promised to stop the ship sales, on release. So, it's easy to demonstrate that they have a clear financial interest/reason to keep the development going on for as long as possible, and while pissing of the previous backers and letting them without refunds, they got new money from new people that presume that the game is coming "soon" now. You can also bring many of the statements of CR always claiming that the game is coming out "next year" since 2013. That demonstrates which could be called a "ponzi-like" scheme. If they had stopped with the ship sales, then expanding the development wouldn't demonstrate that. But as they continued and those ship-jpeg prices are ridiculous when compared with anything offered in the game industry, are regular, and are not existent in its majority, they would, indeed, be considered as acting on bad faith here with the public.
Their argument of "you are getting something better" is easily destroyed too, since that its far to be a fact. There are plenty of videos or real players that demonstrates that after 2 years of what should be released the full game, the game has not even 5% of everything that was promised and all that is broken as hell. Besides, the own company already announced that features were removed, and they were removed because the scope expanded, as an obvious side effect of the scope creep. For example, the single-player coop campaign. Possibly, the Private Server will suffer too and won't come in any time soon in any shape or form that they made people believe or dream that could.
Their shady tactics and bait-and-switch can be easily demonstrated going on from the earlier days until recently, until today. And they dare to claim that just "some" elements are missing. Sounding like if the majority of the game was done. Look what those clowns can do and say to steal your money.
The only problem is that the customers of this kind of product (gamers) does not pursuit consumer rights in general, because "its just a game". If this was any other kind of product, probably they would. CIG is counting on this behavior to escape from lawsuits. It's a bet. Risky. But they have no other exit to keep the circus going on for as long as possible. They are very smart. And all the Space Sim fans following this and supporting this, with all due respect, are been a shame for the PC gamers as a whole. PC Gamers should be smarter than that. Anyway, good luck for everyone involved.
Unfortunately, Star Citizen is FUBAR anyway. Many people know that. Including the own Chris Roberts.
The email in the OP looks similar to another letter I was forwarded after the 'new ToS' was announced.
Before that, the email had the words 'illegal to do a charge back' in them. I got the impression that a CS rep was told to say 'This and this and this' but wasn't given a specific letter to use.
To the OP, if you are interested in a refund, there are ways to get them; charge back, small claims etc.
How can a game still in alpha or beta be called healthy?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The worst thing about this is that I was not asking for a refund, and just asked what the facts were behind the rumors I was hearing. Looks like an automated response form letter, and the fact that they are automatically assuming I want to leave the game, means they must be flooded with requests and inquiries to the point they use such a form assuming you are leaving. Not good either way.
It has to be standardized to make sure that they give the same information to everyone that contacts them regarding refunds. It does not have to be that this "means they must be flooded with requests and inquiries". It means they have a legal who is making sure they cross all their legal "t's". I think people read way too much into things that happen normally in conducting everyday business.
Here we go again. Yet another post about the on-going Star Citizen scam and someone evokes the standard (and worn) "..oh look! over there! LOD!"; while comparing a massive game by a small indie team to a massive $116 million train wreck.
1) I didn't charge $99 for Early Access. The EA purchase were based on DLC tiers. You know, actual content, not JPEGs. http://lodgame.com/store/
Standard industry procedure for any game that offers DLC.
2) An Early Access game has no release date. I could work it for the next decade if I wanted to. It's not crowd-funded, and nobody was promised a release date when it went on Steam Early Access since it is against the rules to give a release date for EA games on Steam.
NOTE: as I type this, there are five year old EA games on Steam.
3) The game was not pulled of Steam in the manner that you are are alluding to - this despite the fact that you actually linked to an article with specific. The game is still on Steam, still being worked on and updated for those who have it. We're just not selling it via EA any more. http://lodgame.com/changelog/
But nice try though. I can tell that a lot of effort went into your post.
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
The letter reads like it was written by a heckled Customer Relations department. A bit over the top, especially if you weren't even asking for a refund.
I can see both sides of the argument.
At this point, I think the only ones that might have a shot at a refund are the original Kickstarter backers that pledged before "vision 2.0" that haven't agreed to the new ToS.
It may be a fairly small cross section of the 'playerbase' and those that qualify may have already received a refund.
At this point the project has already passed the point of no return. Now it's just a matter of seeing what lies beyond that event horizon.
I think they're just standardizing on it now, since they had different responses before, depending on who the CS person happened to be.
The key points that most people are missing here are:
1. The FTC has very - very - clear rules and guidelines for crowd-funded projects. It's not a pledge. It's a promise to deliver something to a backer in exchange for financial support. There is absolutely no obfuscating this; no matter how hard people try. It's crystal clear and not open to interpretation. The FTC and a few State AGs have gone after crowd-funded projects specifically on these grounds.
If you are running what appears to be a scam, or a long con, well then, once the Feds come calling, you have a lot of explaining to do. NONE of which will hold ANY weight if you promised to deliver a certain item, by a certain date, for a certain contribution. And then you have to show where the money went.
2. The June 2016 ToS change has far more legal ramifications than most realize. And the only way that's going to come to light, is when someone marches into court and files either a full-on lawsuit, or one in a small claims court. The ToS will never - ever - stand any legal challenge on any merit.
3. Forcing people to sign a restricted ToS, then refusing them access to the game if they don't, is legally actionable. And there's case law for that. However, in order to prevail in that claim, you have to challenge it. This is why some people in other countries (e.g. Australia) are getting refunds because unlike the US, those countries do have govt. bodies which take consumer actions very seriously. Just this past week, another person in Australia got an $8K (converted from $AUD) refund just as he was about to file a complaint with their governing body (ACCC)
4. The reasons they removed the two key provisions (refund, financial accountability) are geared toward the fact that CIG/RSI have failed to honor their own promises and ToS guidelines. I wrote an entire blog about this recently, so I'm not going to recount it.
I just have to say that I am finding it hard to sympathize with anyone trying to get a refund so late in the day. Especially those who, even after seeing all the signs that the project was FUBAR, continued to give them money these past months. At the end of the day, how this ends will end up being a catastrophic loss of backer money because there is no way that backers are ever - ever - going to get the game they envisioned, let alone the one they were promised, and which they paid for.
But hey, when the end comes, we'll all be here digging up old posts and pointing them out. Thanks Obama!
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
If they say they used the money to fund game development costs, does that mean they have used up ALL money already?
Because if not, then they can refund people.
Also, what happened to Chris words that "if funding stopped tomorrow, we still have private investors funds to continue the project" ?
That was said some years ago... so, what gives?
I'm sure he also said that at $65 million they would have enough money to fund the game and all the stretch goals as they described them. They're now approaching double that figure and claim that refunds can't be awarded because the money has been used up.
But then he also said that 1 crowdfunded dollar was equivalent to 4 publisher based dollars, in which case $115 million = $460 million.
If they say they used the money to fund game development costs, does that mean they have used up ALL money already?
Because if not, then they can refund people.
Also, what happened to Chris words that "if funding stopped tomorrow, we still have private investors funds to continue the project" ?
That was said some years ago... so, what gives?
He said that but rumors say that they, indeed, got some investors (with rumors that some requested their money back) - not really big guys, more like enthusiasts/friends/family.
Rumors aside, CR said that he dropped of these investors as soon as he got enough support directly from backers. He used some of their stretch goals to claim that achieving such mark would allow him to drop the investors and that would give him more power over the company's decision AFTER release, meaning no pressure to sell the company, for example.
But how they push the ship sales despite the bad image that such act produces and raising the pressure to impossible levels, that could mean these: - They are always in the limit, needing more money or neither the basics will be ever completed; - They have hidden investors requiring profit, since they signed for a two years project, they probably wouldn't have patience to receive their results.... so, possibly CR convinced them that they would got a lot more by keeping the ship sales, than actually releasing the product and trusting only in copy sales. - They know for a while that the project is FUBAR, but they could get a lot of profit from that, keeping the ship sales for longer (meaning not releasing), as never achieved in any successful project that they could release just from the money of copies sold, so, they just have been making sure to make it keep longer, creating difficulties to the own team, remaking stuff, always making claims of "vision" and "better", blablabla. It does not matter, image, reliability, etc., customer retention, because they only are on this to increase their pockets for as long as possible, with the part of the money that goes to their personal pockets. In other words, they are washing money.
I think that its a mix of these scenarios that happens with this project.
If they say they used the money to fund game development costs, does that mean they have used up ALL money already?
Because if not, then they can refund people.
Also, what happened to Chris words that "if funding stopped tomorrow, we still have private investors funds to continue the project" ?
That was said some years ago... so, what gives?
I'm sure he also said that at $65 million they would have enough money to fund the game and all the stretch goals as they described them. They're now approaching double that figure and claim that refunds can't be awarded because the money has been used up.
But then he also said that 1 crowdfunded dollar was equivalent to 4 publisher based dollars, in which case $115 million = $460 million.
Exactly, and this whole debacle continues! lol
I can already see some "Derek Smart was right!" T-Shirts being sold after the game "release" or project collapse... hahha
They made promises that had financial ramifications in which they recently, and verily sneakily, wiped out by changing their TOS a month before they would have to compensate people for said broken promises.
Thou should not believe the Goons and their propaganda.
If you are an early backer, the new TOS does NOT change anything for you. See http://imgur.com/a/Ov1Tt Section VII Point 3 "Pledges made under previous TOS continue to be governed by ...."
The fun thing is that the number of backers that actually WANT refunds in reality seems to be VERY small. Some grey/black market traders that speculated with overpriced Star Citizen LTI ships got their curly hairs burned and bring their salty tears to the forums in a very vocal manner. I laugh at their despair and say "Good riddance".
Have fun
The question I have . . or concern rather is that the game is still a fair way off. If they can't afford to refund the "VERY" small number who want refunds. . how can they continue development at the pace they need to? Serious question.
Comments
The whole idea of crowdfunding is seeing something that you REALLY want to experience. Right now I'm waiting on Shards Online, Torment, Battle Chasers, Bards Tale 4. I THINK Torment is behind, and maybe Shards. However, I don't really care, because I backed them because it's something I want, so I'm in no rush to get my hands on it. I'd rather the experience be as close to my expectation as possible.
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
----------------
You forgot to add this:
f) allow Roberts to stroke his big swollen ego
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I tend to agree with you on Kickstarter and other such crowdfunding organizations. You put your money in, you take your chances. As long as a good faith effort is made to deliver. Which is obviously the case for SC.
Of course, if they did include refunds as an option; well that's the bed they made, and they'll have to flop on it.
The later stuff from CiG, sales of Spaceships/Jpgs, etc: If they are not being legally treated as donations (which I understand they are NOT), then they aren't donations. It just seems to be commercially useful for them for the distinction to be vague.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
If there is "true" concern and outrage over questionable crowdfunding by your group of "activists" in the name of consumer's rights and fraud prevention, crusaders such as yourselves have a plethora of existing companies and titles that have openly and clearly violated consumer's trust and money in using crowdfunding as a charade to commit fraud.
I assume it is a very important issue to you as shown in your almost fanatical posting about SC. Why not fight for the rights of people who have been proven to be victims? If you have done this please post links for reference because I would be very interested to see how your progress is fairing against proven fraudsters. Myself and probably other members of this community would like to see the impact you are making against those who have used crowdfunding as an instrument of deception.
If this is not the case, I might be inclined to think this is just attention seeking through negative means.
I would like to think you really want to bring fraud and abuse of crowdfunding to light instead of just a cheap hipster way to seek attention.
Life IS Feudal
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Star Citizen put the brakes on everything and other more honest games have to suffer for teh bad rap they gave to all kinds of early access.
The mainstream gaming media still sing the high praise song about Star Citizen, with a slight caveat that CIG has taken its sweet time. Millions watch SC fan-made and company-made Youtube videos.
Some fringe groups like the Goons weeping salty tears do not a bad reputation make.
Have fun
And now everyone knows what was the purpose of their poll made in the earlier days through one of their comm-links. A poll that mislead customers to believe that as more money they had, faster they would get the core of the game.
"Finally there is one very important element – the more funds we can raise in the pre-launch phase, the more we can invest in additional content (more ships, characters etc.) and perhaps more importantly we can apply greater number of resources to the various tasks to ensure we deliver the full functionality sooner rather than later."
"There has been some concern about “feature creep” with the additional stretch goals. You should all know that we carefully consider the goals we announce. "
"But both types of goals are carefully considered — we don’t commit to adding features that would hold up the game’s ability to go “live” in a fully functional state. "
A poll that could be voted by anyone, backers and non-backers, duplicate accounts, etc. And "community" was not even part of the deal. Of the TOS. There is no deal between a company and a community. There is a deal between the company and the individual backer.
I wonder if CIG could show us all in what clause in their TOS states that in case the "community" asking, they could break such deal made between the company and the individual backer, but, curiously, at the same time, enforcing the same broke deal, by an unilateral decision of the company, backed up by a totally invalid pool, to deny refund to the individual backer? I wonder if in the TOS, its even defined what is "community"?
Just this argument is enough to thrown their TOS, their only matter of defense in a court of law, in the garbage. TOS tossed, and requiring them to give refunds to anyone who ask, based on such situation and bad faith demonstrated.
Notice, that they promised in their TOS to deliver the game BEFORE or in the estimated delivery date, which was Nov 2014 originally, and that IT IS IN THE TOS that they would use of good faith efforts to achieve that.
Now, notice that their answer in the refund refusal, side by side with the own deceptive statements made along the campaign, specially in the letter where the invalid poll was made,
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13266-Letter-From-The-Chairman-19-Million
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13284-Letter-From-The-Chairman-20-Million
just reveals their bad faith on trying to deceive their customers.
And what was proven here, by this simple logic/argument, is that they used of bad faith, a farse of a poll to justify a decision, which is NOT an unforeseen event, but instead, just a decision.
Besides, they are proceeding with this development not without bringing more revenue to it, that they wouldn't have if having delivered the game. It's easy to prove because they promised to stop the ship sales, on release. So, it's easy to demonstrate that they have a clear financial interest/reason to keep the development going on for as long as possible, and while pissing of the previous backers and letting them without refunds, they got new money from new people that presume that the game is coming "soon" now. You can also bring many of the statements of CR always claiming that the game is coming out "next year" since 2013. That demonstrates which could be called a "ponzi-like" scheme. If they had stopped with the ship sales, then expanding the development wouldn't demonstrate that. But as they continued and those ship-jpeg prices are ridiculous when compared with anything offered in the game industry, are regular, and are not existent in its majority, they would, indeed, be considered as acting on bad faith here with the public.
Their argument of "you are getting something better" is easily destroyed too, since that its far to be a fact. There are plenty of videos or real players that demonstrates that after 2 years of what should be released the full game, the game has not even 5% of everything that was promised and all that is broken as hell. Besides, the own company already announced that features were removed, and they were removed because the scope expanded, as an obvious side effect of the scope creep. For example, the single-player coop campaign. Possibly, the Private Server will suffer too and won't come in any time soon in any shape or form that they made people believe or dream that could.
Their shady tactics and bait-and-switch can be easily demonstrated going on from the earlier days until recently, until today. And they dare to claim that just "some" elements are missing. Sounding like if the majority of the game was done. Look what those clowns can do and say to steal your money.
The only problem is that the customers of this kind of product (gamers) does not pursuit consumer rights in general, because "its just a game". If this was any other kind of product, probably they would. CIG is counting on this behavior to escape from lawsuits. It's a bet. Risky. But they have no other exit to keep the circus going on for as long as possible. They are very smart. And all the Space Sim fans following this and supporting this, with all due respect, are been a shame for the PC gamers as a whole. PC Gamers should be smarter than that. Anyway, good luck for everyone involved.
Unfortunately, Star Citizen is FUBAR anyway. Many people know that. Including the own Chris Roberts.
Before that, the email had the words 'illegal to do a charge back' in them.
I got the impression that a CS rep was told to say 'This and this and this' but wasn't given a specific letter to use.
To the OP, if you are interested in a refund, there are ways to get them; charge back, small claims etc.
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
It has to be standardized to make sure that they give the same information to everyone that contacts them regarding refunds. It does not have to be that this "means they must be flooded with requests and inquiries". It means they have a legal who is making sure they cross all their legal "t's". I think people read way too much into things that happen normally in conducting everyday business.
Let's party like it is 1863!
Here we go again. Yet another post about the on-going Star Citizen scam and someone evokes the standard (and worn) "..oh look! over there! LOD!"; while comparing a massive game by a small indie team to a massive $116 million train wreck.
1) I didn't charge $99 for Early Access. The EA purchase were based on DLC tiers. You know, actual content, not JPEGs. http://lodgame.com/store/
Standard industry procedure for any game that offers DLC.
2) An Early Access game has no release date. I could work it for the next decade if I wanted to. It's not crowd-funded, and nobody was promised a release date when it went on Steam Early Access since it is against the rules to give a release date for EA games on Steam.
NOTE: as I type this, there are five year old EA games on Steam.
3) The game was not pulled of Steam in the manner that you are are alluding to - this despite the fact that you actually linked to an article with specific. The game is still on Steam, still being worked on and updated for those who have it. We're just not selling it via EA any more. http://lodgame.com/changelog/
But nice try though. I can tell that a lot of effort went into your post.
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living.
If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
The key points that most people are missing here are:
1. The FTC has very - very - clear rules and guidelines for crowd-funded projects. It's not a pledge. It's a promise to deliver something to a backer in exchange for financial support. There is absolutely no obfuscating this; no matter how hard people try. It's crystal clear and not open to interpretation. The FTC and a few State AGs have gone after crowd-funded projects specifically on these grounds.
If you are running what appears to be a scam, or a long con, well then, once the Feds come calling, you have a lot of explaining to do. NONE of which will hold ANY weight if you promised to deliver a certain item, by a certain date, for a certain contribution. And then you have to show where the money went.
2. The June 2016 ToS change has far more legal ramifications than most realize. And the only way that's going to come to light, is when someone marches into court and files either a full-on lawsuit, or one in a small claims court. The ToS will never - ever - stand any legal challenge on any merit.
3. Forcing people to sign a restricted ToS, then refusing them access to the game if they don't, is legally actionable. And there's case law for that. However, in order to prevail in that claim, you have to challenge it. This is why some people in other countries (e.g. Australia) are getting refunds because unlike the US, those countries do have govt. bodies which take consumer actions very seriously. Just this past week, another person in Australia got an $8K (converted from $AUD) refund just as he was about to file a complaint with their governing body (ACCC)
4. The reasons they removed the two key provisions (refund, financial accountability) are geared toward the fact that CIG/RSI have failed to honor their own promises and ToS guidelines. I wrote an entire blog about this recently, so I'm not going to recount it.
I just have to say that I am finding it hard to sympathize with anyone trying to get a refund so late in the day. Especially those who, even after seeing all the signs that the project was FUBAR, continued to give them money these past months. At the end of the day, how this ends will end up being a catastrophic loss of backer money because there is no way that backers are ever - ever - going to get the game they envisioned, let alone the one they were promised, and which they paid for.
But hey, when the end comes, we'll all be here digging up old posts and pointing them out. Thanks Obama!
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living.
If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
If they say they used the money to fund game development costs, does that mean they have used up ALL money already?
Because if not, then they can refund people.
Also, what happened to Chris words that "if funding stopped tomorrow, we still have private investors funds to continue the project" ?
That was said some years ago... so, what gives?
New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
Until Star Citizen is fully released, NO ONE got the product yet.
So that 14 day thing is bullshit.
New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
I'm sure he also said that at $65 million they would have enough money to fund the game and all the stretch goals as they described them.
They're now approaching double that figure and claim that refunds can't be awarded because the money has been used up.
But then he also said that 1 crowdfunded dollar was equivalent to 4 publisher based dollars, in which case $115 million = $460 million.
Rumors aside, CR said that he dropped of these investors as soon as he got enough support directly from backers. He used some of their stretch goals to claim that achieving such mark would allow him to drop the investors and that would give him more power over the company's decision AFTER release, meaning no pressure to sell the company, for example.
But how they push the ship sales despite the bad image that such act produces and raising the pressure to impossible levels, that could mean these:
- They are always in the limit, needing more money or neither the basics will be ever completed;
- They have hidden investors requiring profit, since they signed for a two years project, they probably wouldn't have patience to receive their results.... so, possibly CR convinced them that they would got a lot more by keeping the ship sales, than actually releasing the product and trusting only in copy sales.
- They know for a while that the project is FUBAR, but they could get a lot of profit from that, keeping the ship sales for longer (meaning not releasing), as never achieved in any successful project that they could release just from the money of copies sold, so, they just have been making sure to make it keep longer, creating difficulties to the own team, remaking stuff, always making claims of "vision" and "better", blablabla. It does not matter, image, reliability, etc., customer retention, because they only are on this to increase their pockets for as long as possible, with the part of the money that goes to their personal pockets. In other words, they are washing money.
I think that its a mix of these scenarios that happens with this project.
I can already see some "Derek Smart was right!" T-Shirts being sold after the game "release" or project collapse... hahha
New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!