Charge Back and Refunds

dsmart · July 2016

Talonsin said:

Distopia said:

they left open a rather lengthy window for original backers to get refunds if they didn't agree with those changes in plans. Quite a convenient thing to omit IMO...

Agreed to a point, however, they closed the window THEN cancelled Star Marine after promoting it for most of 2015. Until the PU was released in Dec of 2015 and refunds stopped, many people had no reason to ask for a refund. Star Marine being indefinitely postponed, delivery dates being thrown out the window and called "artificial", lies about a $21,000 lobby door, art plagiarism, the announcement that ships introduced and sold in 2015 and beyond would not be in the initial release of the game, co-op completely removed from the single player and the game being launched as a MVP all happened AFTER the window closed.

WAIT!!! You forgot the MVP!!!!

MaxBacon · July 2016

Talonsin said:

MaxBacon said:

Yeah the refunds were being given quite openly for several months, it was even noticed on the media. For those who did not want to remain as backers, who did not agree with the direction neither with the time that it is taking... Gosh there was enough opportunities for refunds. I had not met any original KS backer that got a refund refused during such times.

To be fair, up until Dec 2015 when the PU launched, Chris was running around telling everyone what they wanted to hear so there was not much reason to ask for a refund. It was only AFTER they stopped giving refunds and used the PU as the excuse for it that they started changing directions and gave cause for refunds.

If you look at the last 6 to 7 months, more things have been cut/changed in the project than had been changed in all of the years before 2016.

nah. Also things as co-op drop, the SM delayed with no ETA's to be seen and others were all during last year.

The SC direction when it came to scope/features happened YEARS ago, specially with the crowdfund stretch goals that evolved on what was pitched on KS.

As for what changed on the last months, that's utterly ridiculous for me, a claim made for the sake of over-blown dramatization to give credibility to your claims. Today we have way more direction, progress and road-mapping towards what to expect than we had during any time last year. Things as what is called today of MVP where more than expect-able on my side, or they would have a massively long development to deliver all features, or like games as Elite Dangerous, they would have to push a base-game to expand further.

Anyway that's all irrelevant, if you want a refund, go call the police, lawyers... whatever you want and see if that works out for you.

dsmart said:
WAIT!!! You forgot the MVP!!!!

Your name is very mis-leading on the "Smart" part. If you read his post you see he hadn't forget the MVP.

Babuinix · July 2016

Can't wait for Gamescom aka Twitter Meltdown Ep2 lol

Distopia · July 2016

Talonsin said:

Distopia said:

they left open a rather lengthy window for original backers to get refunds if they didn't agree with those changes in plans. Quite a convenient thing to omit IMO...

Also, what is the point of your comment? I was addressing the person for saying a court would call a person an idiot for per-purchasing a product without a delivery date. I was simply showing him we were given dates and a ToS that provided refunds if that date was not met. How does that relate to your comment about having a refund window?

Read your own statement... That omission makes this sound incredibly nefarious. As if they just took everyone's money ran off with it and that was the end of it.

"I had it in writing that if the game was not delivered within 18 months of that date I would get a refund. Of course, after he got our money, Chris Roberts did a complete 180, changed the ToS to deny any refunds and said he would not be held to "artificial" delivery dates..."

Arillix · July 2016

RSI agrees to use its good faith business efforts to deliver to you the pledge items and the Game on or before the [[[{{estimated}} delivery date]]] communicated to you on the Website. [[[However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a firm promise and may be extended by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time.]]] Accordingly, you agree that any unearned portion of your Pledge shall not be refundable until and unless RSI has failed to deliver the relevant pledge items and/or the Game to you within eighteen (18) months after the estimated delivery date.

The above is the first part of the old and new TOS.

So what part of "ESTIMATED DELIVERY DATE" and YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DELIVERY AS OF SUCH DATE IS [[{{NOT}}]] A FIRM PROMISE. Do you not understand?

mr1602 · July 2016

More media outlets are reporting the $3000 story http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/167942-Star-Citizen-2-500-Refund

Erillion · July 2016

dsmart said:

ii) where I promised anyone, anything - let alone a refund - for delivery by any fixed date.

I'll wait. Pressing F5 until you come back. OK?

http://archive.is/513rb#selection-141.0-149.313

"THE LONGEST LAST MILE

In my State Of Play (15-09-04) update, I mentioned that we had started working on wrapping up the key aspects of the game now. To that end, all things being equal, and depending on whether or not during final testing certain features need to be reworked or cut, I am expecting that we will hit final release sometime in the first half of 2016."

(funny that you already spoke about wrapping up LOD many times before e.g. in this 2012 article too ;-)
http://www.polygon.com/2012/11/14/3553620/the-redemption-of-derek-smart

LoD in development since 2009 according to your own words

"....Instead, as I did with GCES, AAW/AOA, I decided to go back to the drawing board, start small and build up. That’s how I started working on the designs for Line Of Defense back in 2009, but didn’t get around to starting actual dev work until late 2010. ...."

And 12 days ago you said

"....Line Of Defense is in Early Access. Which means that it is still in development. It’s nowhere near finished. It has bugs..."

12 days ago =
3rd of July =
AFTER the END of "FIRST HALF of 2016"

Have fun

Xeno.phon · July 2016

mr1602 said:

Xeno.phon said:

mr1602 said:

MaxBacon said:

mr1602 said:

Erillion said:

Feel free to tell us more about "the lawsuit".

Because Streetrollers case is no lawsuit.

Have fun

It is worse than a lawsuit. Authorities are now involved.

????????? O.o

Read the story on my signature. Rockpapershotgun has the same story as well. DCBA is 'building a case' against CIG.

Dont you mean "A bunch of idiots that have no concept of what crowdfunding is are trying to figure out what is right and wrong" Really has nothing to do with RSI, in fact if this was a real world product that you pre purchased despite not being given a delivery date the courts would call you an idiot and throw you out.

Until RSI cancels their development and or stop being able to prove progress the only rights backers have is to wait like adults for the product they ordered and didnt get a delivery date for.

I don't think you will have much luck on trying to convince anyone that you know more about courts / rights than the California Attorney General.

SO they have proclaimed wrong doing then? No they have not. Just because they are exploring a case, or even filing one, none of that matters until a ruling is passed and legal precedence is set. Even then it is able to be challenged to be more in line with how physical goods are assured.

Just based on how it would be viewed if you pre purchased a physical good, before it was even created, and that company could prove progress towards its stated purpose, then you have no right to a refund.

There was NO time frame specified upon purchase, they have provable progress on the product. So even if it went to court it would not go the little kid route, like you all seem to think it would.

Too much DS on the brain maybe?

Xeno.phon · July 2016

Talonsin said:

Xeno.phon said:

in fact if this was a real world product that you pre purchased despite not being given a delivery date the courts would call you an idiot and throw you out.

Funny, when I backed this project I was given a two year delivery date and I had it in writing that if the game was not delivered within 18 months of that date I would get a refund. Of course, after he got our money, Chris Roberts did a complete 180, changed the ToS to deny any refunds and said he would not be held to "artificial" delivery dates...

That is quite a guy who you are defending.

======================================================================

No idea why this site is so horrible with its design, it wont let me reply normally no matter what I do.

They stated the removal of the previous release date within 30 days of the KS finishing. They hid nothing, it is not their fault you are unobservant. Years ago when they removed the release date openly would have been when to claim a refund. At this point you have 0 legal right to a refund, period.

Now if RSI stop proving progress towards a finished product, cancels the project or goes bankrupt....THEN you have legal recourse. Until then just be patient or gtfo.

mr1602 · July 2016

Xeno.phon said:

mr1602 said:

Xeno.phon said:

mr1602 said:

MaxBacon said:

mr1602 said:

Erillion said:

Feel free to tell us more about "the lawsuit".

Because Streetrollers case is no lawsuit.

Have fun

It is worse than a lawsuit. Authorities are now involved.

????????? O.o

Read the story on my signature. Rockpapershotgun has the same story as well. DCBA is 'building a case' against CIG.

Dont you mean "A bunch of idiots that have no concept of what crowdfunding is are trying to figure out what is right and wrong" Really has nothing to do with RSI, in fact if this was a real world product that you pre purchased despite not being given a delivery date the courts would call you an idiot and throw you out.

Until RSI cancels their development and or stop being able to prove progress the only rights backers have is to wait like adults for the product they ordered and didnt get a delivery date for.

I don't think you will have much luck on trying to convince anyone that you know more about courts / rights than the California Attorney General.

SO they have proclaimed wrong doing then? No they have not. Just because they are exploring a case, or even filing one, none of that matters until a ruling is passed and legal precedence is set. Even then it is able to be challenged to be more in line with how physical goods are assured.

Just based on how it would be viewed if you pre purchased a physical good, before it was even created, and that company could prove progress towards its stated purpose, then you have no right to a refund.

There was NO time frame specified upon purchase, they have provable progress on the product. So even if it went to court it would not go the little kid route, like you all seem to think it would.

Too much DS on the brain maybe?

California Attorney General is taking an interest and DCBA are 'building a case' on one side. We have some internet poster saying something on the other. Not sure if I like your odds there when it comes to legal matters.

mr1602 · July 2016

I am amazed on how quickly the narrative in this thread turned to 'DSmart's game LOD is bad!'.
Why is that relevant here at all?

Something I'm trying to get an answer to is why the AG acted this quickly. The $3000 refund story is nice but the timing is weird considering this is the US government who isn't the quickest to act when it comes to issues like this.

It could be that the backer is the fuse which lit up all the other issues that's surrounding Star Citizen. The backer isn't the first to talk to their AG nor the first to raise an FTC ticket.

Babuinix · July 2016

Just another tempest in a teapot... haters have been trying this for almost 2 years now. Star Citizen just keeps getting better and better. After Gamescom and Star Citizen getting 2 or 3 millions more nobody will even remember this bullsh*t.

mr1602 · July 2016

Babuinix said:

Just another tempest in a teapot... haters have been trying this for almost 2 years now. Star Citizen just keeps getting better and better. After Gamescom and Star Citizen getting 2 or 3 millions more nobody will even remember this bullsh*t.

If this is true, why continue the 'deny refund' policy?
What good does that do?

Erillion · July 2016

mr1602 said:

Babuinix said:

Just another tempest in a teapot... haters have been trying this for almost 2 years now. Star Citizen just keeps getting better and better. After Gamescom and Star Citizen getting 2 or 3 millions more nobody will even remember this bullsh*t.

If this is true, why continue the 'deny refund' policy?
What good does that do?

Why don't you ask CIG/RSI?

They are the only ones that can give you an answer to that question.

Everyone else can only offer a personal opinion.

Have fun

mr1602 · July 2016

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

Babuinix said:

Just another tempest in a teapot... haters have been trying this for almost 2 years now. Star Citizen just keeps getting better and better. After Gamescom and Star Citizen getting 2 or 3 millions more nobody will even remember this bullsh*t.

If this is true, why continue the 'deny refund' policy?
What good does that do?

Why don't you ask CIG/RSI?

They are the only ones that can give you an answer to that question.

Everyone else can only offer a personal opinion.

Have fun

It is like asking you 'why do you bring up DSmart/LoD every time CIG does something wrong?'

It is good to see people who are wanting to get out, having a blueprint to follow.
1. Lodge a claim with DCBA (http://dcba.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/dca)
2. Lodge a claim with the FTC.
3. Inform CIG of the two case number.
4. Wait for the refund.

I know of another case where a refund was granted after following the above so it is working.

PottedPlant22 · July 2016

CrazKanuk said:

dsmart said:

<snip>

Youre playing a dangerous game...

I would think a dangerous game would be taking over a hundred million in funding, deciding to 'create' multiple separate games, spending money on things other than what could arguably used for developing said game, being investigated by state and federal law enforcement, openly being challenged by media for unethical and racist practices. I would say the above sounds like playing a dangerous game. But no, maybe you're right. Making a random opinion post on a game forum is where the real danger zone lies.

SpottyGekko · July 2016

I look forward to the conclusion of this supposed lawsuit, lol

Unlike the lynch mob, the "authorities" only determine guilt at the END of the court case, not before it even starts. And if they do determine wrongdoing, it is punished in a fair and proportionate manner, not with a rope across a tree branch...

The scope of court cases are usually narrowly defined, so this case will produce a ruling vis-a-vis refund policy, which will probably apply to crowdfunded projects generally. It may even set some interesting precedents.

IF CIG are found guilty of malpractice in regards to refunds, they may be fined. I'm sure someone can dig-up previous examples in this regard, there must be hundreds of refund disputes in legal history.

In the case of a fine, the court will not set the fine at an amount that will kill the business, that will just result in an appeal and another 5 years worth of litigation.

MaxBacon · July 2016

SpottyGekko said:

I look forward to the conclusion of this supposed lawsuit, lol

Unlike the lynch mob, the "authorities" only determine guilt at the END of the court case, not before it even starts. And if they do determine wrongdoing, it is punished in a fair and proportionate manner, not with a rope across a tree branch...

The scope of court cases are usually narrowly defined, so this case will produce a ruling vis-a-vis refund policy, which will probably apply to crowdfunded projects generally. It may even set some interesting precedents.

IF CIG are found guilty of malpractice in regards to refunds, they may be fined. I'm sure someone can dig-up previous examples in this regard, there must be hundreds of refund disputes in legal history.

In the case of a fine, the court will not set the fine at an amount that will kill the business, that will just result in an appeal and another 5 years worth of litigation.

Oh finally someone wake up and post something based on the real world.

The law is not part of the hate campaigns that are ran against this game/company. And if anything is detected the company as we see so often is going to on this specific case that is where the controversy lies, give refunds or not. And pretty much the company here does provide the refunds when it sees it's not worth the trouble, making disputes about refunds dealt with before they reach any legal action.

And you're right, things like this ending up on courts, contested on both sides, will push the cases through years, the day one decision actually comes out Star Citizen likely released!

Anything else, the stories and specially the "armchair lawyers/judges/executioners" are nothing but noise.

GrumpyHobbit · July 2016

dsmart said:

When are the lawsuits against your PROVEN failure to deliver happening?

OK I'll bite.

Go ahead and show me one instance of where

i) any such ramblings of "failure to deliver" exist

ii) where I promised anyone, anything - let alone a refund - for delivery by any fixed date.

I'll wait. Pressing F5 until you come back. OK?

Your F5 key broken?

mr1602 · July 2016

SpottyGekko said:

I look forward to the conclusion of this supposed lawsuit, lol

Unlike the lynch mob, the "authorities" only determine guilt at the END of the court case, not before it even starts. And if they do determine wrongdoing, it is punished in a fair and proportionate manner, not with a rope across a tree branch...

The scope of court cases are usually narrowly defined, so this case will produce a ruling vis-a-vis refund policy, which will probably apply to crowdfunded projects generally. It may even set some interesting precedents.

IF CIG are found guilty of malpractice in regards to refunds, they may be fined. I'm sure someone can dig-up previous examples in this regard, there must be hundreds of refund disputes in legal history.

In the case of a fine, the court will not set the fine at an amount that will kill the business, that will just result in an appeal and another 5 years worth of litigation.

Not sure what lawsuit you are talking about. Is this paid PR trying to change the subject?
Is it that hard to see that people who want refunds, have a path now? A path that is being shown brightly by so many gaming media site out there?

And oh, have fun saying you know more about legal / consumer rights than the California Attorney General.

'Have Fun'

MaxBacon · July 2016

mr1602 said:

And oh, have fun saying you know more about legal / consumer rights than the California Attorney General.

I don't see where that was said, you're just saying that for the sake of troll-baiting against the other poster to discard anything said.

Truth is, nothing on legal matters is happening here, CIG was legally not forced to do anything and if they refuse a refund the next times this happens they are on their right. Scaling up the situation would possibily involve legal matters, and that's not what's happening.

Erillion · July 2016

mr1602 said:

Not sure what lawsuit you are talking about.

I suspect he means this "lawsuit":
"...And my guess is that very soon when the lawsuit becomes public ..."
in The Smarty's post on page 31. One of many imaginary lawsuits of our Triple D.

Have fun

SpottyGekko · July 2016

mr1602 said:

SpottyGekko said:

I look forward to the conclusion of this supposed lawsuit, lol

Unlike the lynch mob, the "authorities" only determine guilt at the END of the court case, not before it even starts. And if they do determine wrongdoing, it is punished in a fair and proportionate manner, not with a rope across a tree branch...

The scope of court cases are usually narrowly defined, so this case will produce a ruling vis-a-vis refund policy, which will probably apply to crowdfunded projects generally. It may even set some interesting precedents.

IF CIG are found guilty of malpractice in regards to refunds, they may be fined. I'm sure someone can dig-up previous examples in this regard, there must be hundreds of refund disputes in legal history.

In the case of a fine, the court will not set the fine at an amount that will kill the business, that will just result in an appeal and another 5 years worth of litigation.

Not sure what lawsuit you are talking about. Is this paid PR trying to change the subject?
Is it that hard to see that people who want refunds, have a path now? A path that is being shown brightly by so many gaming media site out there?

And oh, have fun saying you know more about legal / consumer rights than the California Attorney General.

'Have Fun'

As you keep saying, the "authorities are taking an interest".

People are filing complaints over refund disputes and apparently the Cali AG is "building a case". Nothing surprising there. Once the AG has carefully considered the facts before them, they'll decide if it's worth pursuing.

That is the "lawsuit" I'm talking about. What else could it be ?

I didn't claim to "know more about law" than anyone, lol, all I'm saying is that legal penalties are always "proportionate and fair". I think that's even enshrined in the US Constitution.

mr1602 · July 2016

MaxBacon said:

mr1602 said:

And oh, have fun saying you know more about legal / consumer rights than the California Attorney General.

I don't see where that was said, you're just saying that for the sake of troll-baiting against the other poster to discard anything said.

Truth is, nothing on legal matters is happening here, CIG was legally not forced to do anything and if they refuse a refund the next times this happens they are on their right. Scaling up the situation would possibily involve legal matters, and that's not what's happening.

So, CIG wasn't forced to do anything.
That's why they said 'No' to the $3000 backer, twice.
And when the backer got the FTC/DCBA/AG asking questions to CIG, only then did CIG grant the refund.
Surely you can see that CIG wasn't forced to do anything here.
/Sarcasm

'they are on their right.' Is this where you tell me that you know law and rights more than the California Attorney General?

psiic · July 2016

MaxBacon said:

SpottyGekko said:

I look forward to the conclusion of this supposed lawsuit, lol

Unlike the lynch mob, the "authorities" only determine guilt at the END of the court case, not before it even starts. And if they do determine wrongdoing, it is punished in a fair and proportionate manner, not with a rope across a tree branch...

The scope of court cases are usually narrowly defined, so this case will produce a ruling vis-a-vis refund policy, which will probably apply to crowdfunded projects generally. It may even set some interesting precedents.

IF CIG are found guilty of malpractice in regards to refunds, they may be fined. I'm sure someone can dig-up previous examples in this regard, there must be hundreds of refund disputes in legal history.

In the case of a fine, the court will not set the fine at an amount that will kill the business, that will just result in an appeal and another 5 years worth of litigation.

Oh finally someone wake up and post something based on the real world.

The law is not part of the hate campaigns that are ran against this game/company. And if anything is detected the company as we see so often is going to on this specific case that is where the controversy lies, give refunds or not. And pretty much the company here does provide the refunds when it sees it's not worth the trouble, making disputes about refunds dealt with before they reach any legal action.

And you're right, things like this ending up on courts, contested on both sides, will push the cases through years, the day one decision actually comes out Star Citizen likely released!

Anything else, the stories and specially the "armchair lawyers/judges/executioners" are nothing but noise.

Actually businesses are very often "seized by the courts" assets sold off when in breech of contract. Technically that is the legal argument I would put forth does taking money for ( product A ) with established timeline, then using those funds for ( product B ) and removing timeline, constitute breech of contract. In my experience it is a very clear breech but I am not an expert of California law that may be skewed to protect the business not the consumer.

Howdy, Stranger!

Charge Back and Refunds

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Charge Back and Refunds

Comments