The Star Citizen Thread v 4

[MaxLexandre]

I don't think you understand, CIG is denying people refunds on the grounds that substantial amount of the product was already delivered. If they just refunded those that wanted it would be fine but they don't, they actively try to discourage and intimidate to avoid issuing them.

I don't think you understand... The ain't no world-wide refund policy, neither law. Every case is a case as there is refunds being issued as there are refunds being denied.

On the case of specific ships bought, and not a full account refund, that will fall upon the ToS.

 

[Zargor]

That's a joke no?

I can't find it now, it was a comparison between the old and new versions of the Vanguard and the new one had distinctly less polygons - which is not a bad idea as clearly it will greatly benefit performance if they reduce the models complexity a bit.

 

[kilvenny]

Subject to change is fair enough for minor changes, but not major ones and seating changes are major. Lets take a real world example. I need a new plane in real life because my Cessna 152 is getting elderly. I go to my manufacturer and ask for a two seater, sign a contract and when it arrives its a single seater. Hmm, I am pretty sure any court would rule that halving the number of seats was a material change, should have been notified to the buyer and was breach of contract. In SC games terms, the difference between a two seater and a single seater is huge because it allows co-op play at ship level. Personally if I was impacted I would be seeking a refund or a suitable substitute.

 

[MaxLexandre]

From the start it was said, the Specs WERE NOT FINAL...

It will always be claimed that, because the number of Crew, is on the same place where it is said "this specs ain't final!", hear by, they do can change it, legally, you did agree that there could have been changes on those specs when you bought it. With that, what you bought being in concept / development, being a digital product, and with the store credit melt alternative existence...

...Do you really think you would have any standing grounds for a court case?

 

[ianw]

From the start it was said, the Specs WERE NOT FINAL...

It will always be claimed that, because the number of Crew, is on the same place where it is said "this specs ain't final!", hear by, they do can change it, legally, you did agree that there could have been changes on those specs when you bought it. With that, what you bought being in concept / development, being a digital product, and with the store credit melt alternative existence...

...Do you really think you would have any standing grounds for a court case?

It was also said that the game was coming out in 2014 or financials would be published.

But that got changed didn't it.

Arguing that something is "so" because CIG says it's "so" doesn't really stand up to the test of how CIG acts with regard to what they've said.

 

[MaxLexandre]

It was also said that the game was coming out in 2014 or financials would be published.

And even that, wasn't directly tied to financials, CIG agrees to legally publish financials if they FAIL to deliver the game. So it will be discussed that they already "FAILED" because of 2014 release was missed, but the ToS have not implied that they would have to open financials for delays, being the 12/18 months term also separated.


You can find excuses for so, but they haven't said so directly, the door that said "subject to change", was there on this case, what gives them the ability to not be locked to the specs mentioned on a Ship's Page.

 

[ianw]

And even that, wasn't directly tied to financials, CIG agrees to legally publish financials if they FAIL to deliver the game. So it will be discussed that they already "FAILED" because of 2014 release was missed, but the ToS have not implied that they would have to open financials for delays, being the 12/18 months term also separated.


You can find excuses for so, but they haven't said so directly, the door that said "subject to change", was there on this case, what gives them the ability to not be locked to the specs mentioned on a Ship's Page.

Seems kind of a basic thing though.

2 seats you can fly with a friend - 1 you can't.

"Oops - we might have forgotten the other seat - silly us - nevermind T&Cs apply!"

I mean how difficult is it at the planning stage.

"2 or 1 - 2 or 1 - oh I dunno let's go with 2 then, hopefully they'll be enough JPEG seats in stock when we get that far - lol!"

 

[MaxLexandre]

Then buy the ship when it's added to the game and not during it's concepts. That's exactly the stage where things can most change.

Problem is they reveal the intended specs on a very early stage and then have to deal with balance or design nightmares, so everything will be put as "WIP", as it is now, and depending of Backer feedback that ship WILL change, the Freelancer did, so several others, i'd expect far feedback goes, that the 2nd seat will have to return.

Changes really go both ways, some ships were improved and made bigger, others were or made smaller than the concept shows, or less fire-power, etc...

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

And even that, wasn't directly tied to financials, CIG agrees to legally publish financials if they FAIL to deliver the game. So it will be discussed that they already "FAILED" because of 2014 release was missed, but the ToS have not implied that they would have to open financials for delays, being the 12/18 months term also separated.

Excellent.

Since failing to deliver is mathematically speaking simply the limit of an indefinite delay as the delay tends to infinite, then there is no need for any accountability at all either even if they fail to deliver the game. I want me some of those ToS.

Well played CIG, well played.

 

[who?]

There seems to be a problem increasingly creeping into the gaming industry of longer and longer term pre-sales (pre-orders, pledges, backers, season-passes etc.) - the problem is: the longer the time between purchase and realisation, the more scope for the product delivered to differ dramatically from what was originally promised; even with the best of intentions from the developer.

You can say that's inevitable, there's an asterisk and a clause warning you this could happen; fair enough. But the more things change, the more pointless these early sales are. The developer could remove the one feature the buyer wanted when they purchased, and these pledges aren't cheap!

Caveat emptor, fair enough. But surely it has to have limits. You can't just offer a Ferrari and deliver a Lada*, and wave your hands and point to the small-print that covers you. It's not unique to SC at all, though I think the scale of the game, the length of its development cycle and the scope of its ambition make it particularly vulnerable to such over-promises and under-deliveries. (If ED is any different, it's because it's launched and has a forum full of us biting FD's ears off and a bug-forum bursting to the seams, which is tempering its ambition).

I really think a specific pledge should be set in stone. If feature/stats aren't certain, don't use them to sell a pledge/package. If you want to mention uncertain features, fine. But CLEARLY mark them as such. Say "This may be a 1 or 2 seater craft", not "This is a two seater craft*" Don't rely on small print and asterisks.

(* yes, I am deliberately being a little hyperbolic for effect...)

 

[MaxLexandre]

Well played CIG, well played.

It's what's written there, plain and simple. The refund policy is months away and this time it can't be delayed for past backers so things will keep going on. But this is what YOU, every backer did agree with upon Backing this game, even with the changes 1 year ago, the core of those terms still stands.


Now if you feel very outraged by it, and do not care about a game currently being developed yet about their ToS policies, i recommend you to get a lawyer and put CIG on court to try to call out their ToS.

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

It's what's written there, plain and simple. The refund policy is months away and this time it can't be delayed for past backers so things will keep going on. But this is what YOU, every backer did agree with upon Backing this game, even with the changes 1 year ago, the core of those terms still stands.


Now if you feel very outraged by it, and do not care about a game currently being developed yet about their ToS policies, i recommend you to get a lawyer and put CIG on court to try to call out their ToS.

Forget the ToS. This is not about petty legal squabbles over semantics.

I do not have any particular outrage over it, other than trying to understand better if CIG may be throwing away our pledges or not. If indeed CIG was misusing our money, wouldnt you want to prevent future backers throwing away theirs? Not wanting to see those financials after all these delays and issues to date is becoming more and more reckless as time goes by and akin, in my humble opinion, to the ostrich myth of hiding its head in the sand.

If you really care about this project and its backers I think those financials are a must see at this stage given all the delays and scope cancellations so far.

 

[MaxLexandre]

*Mod hat off



I do not have any particular outrage, other than trying to understand better if CIG may be throwing away our pledges or not. If indeed CIG was misusing our money, wouldnt you want to prevent future backers throwing away theirs? Not wanting to see those financials after all these delays is becoming more and more reckless as time goes by and akin, in my humble opinion, to the ostrich myth of hiding its head in the sand.

If you really care about this project and its backers I think those financials are a must see at this stage given all the delays and scope cancellations so far.

What i hope is that CIG releases financials when the backers ask them to. I myself do not play out by fear mongering, this is a crowdfund, comes from a KS, we all know the risks, so should ANY new Backer do.

Not when Derek Smart, Internet Drama, Goon Armies and so on ask them to. And currently, what i see is that the majority of the backers does not care about this topic, hear by so will CIG ignore the minority.
I also do not care about this, i care about a game, its progress, its updates, and so on.

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

Not when Derek Smart, Internet Drama, Goon Armies and so on ask them to.

That is also a nice ToS of yours right there!

Since I am no DS nor a goon, but you can probably catalogue anything you fancy as "internet drama" and "so on", I presume you are fully covered with respects to accountability.

You sure you dont work for CIG? Awfully efficient terms those are!

Changing topic a bit, and on a personal note, it would be great that if every time that someone not related to the above mentioned expresses his/her personal opinion on a critical way about SC, that you dont bring up DS, goons or what not as a strawman. Many of us here are regular backers too. Make of that what you will but would really be appreciated.

 

[MaxLexandre]

Changing topic a bit, and on a personal note, it would be great that if every time that someone not related to the above mentioned expresses his/her personal opinion on a critical way about SC, that you bring DS, goons or what not is not just brought up as a strawman. Make of that what you will but would really be appreciated.

I haven't said it's all there, i haven't mentioned you either, i'm just stating things that happen. There are people around who legitimately ask questions and want answers.

Unfortunately, those people are obfuscated by the constant trolling, goons causing dramas, bashing for the sake of bashing. That causes the issue that those who legitimately poke on this topics, get drawn into this massive, mess, a silly internet flame war that is lasting for more than half a year now, everybody gets labeled these days!

So yeah, that won't change now, it's too late now, only the game will change this mess and get people playing a game instead.


So yeah i am just stating a fact, i hope CIG releases financials when the backers, not Goons and Drama Queens ask them to, because currently, there is a majority, and there is a minority.
There's people with legit concerns, and there is one awful number of people who just want to set something on fire... and grab some popcorn.

PS: Important note: i wasn't talking about anybody on this thread, yet a generalization of the situation surrounding this subject, on the SC's community, for anybody who might be thinking i'm targeting attacks to other users, if anybody took the hat, i'm sorry to inform there was no hat.

 

[ianw]

It's what's written there, plain and simple. The refund policy is months away and this time it can't be delayed for past backers so things will keep going on. But this is what YOU, every backer did agree with upon Backing this game, even with the changes 1 year ago, the core of those terms still stands.


Now if you feel very outraged by it, and do not care about a game currently being developed yet about their ToS policies, i recommend you to get a lawyer and put CIG on court to try to call out their ToS.

Fortunately there is this thing that is to CIG as Kryptonite is to Superman. Chargeback! No lawyer required.

If CIG could bring themselves to own the issue and just refund without all the shenanigans and ToS nonsense I could at least give them that. Like FD did with their refund saga.

But no, they seem to think that it's okay insinuating that someone using chargeback is apparently committing bank fraud. As far as I'm concerned any negativity they get is entirely of their own making and well deserved.

Chargeback exists precisely to deal with companies like CIG who think they can make it up as they go along.

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

I haven't said it's all there, i haven't mentioned you either, i'm just stating things that happen. There are people around who legitimately ask questions and want answers.

Your original reference was completely gratuitous and a direct strawman. Not the right way to go about things in a reasonable discussion imho.

I think many of us here are grown ups, simple backers, that can hold our own opinions. And we would appreciate you addressing us as such. Lumpsuming other posters with a strawman denotes a bit of a lack of posting class, and a lack of arguments too.

But I can take this last post of yours as an apology I guess, no worries.

 

[MaxLexandre]

Your original reference was completely gratuitous and a direct strawman. Not the right way to go about things in a reasonable discussion imho.

I think many of us here are grown ups, simple backers, that can hold our own opinions. And we would appreciate you addressing us as such. Lumpsuming other posters with a strawman denotes a bit of a lack of class, and a lack of arguments too.

But I can take this last post of yours as an apology I guess, no worries.

I'm sorry if i was mis-understood on the message i transmitted.

I may be just overheating because we already had the exact same discussion on this and on past iterations of this thread.


So i'll just leave for now and come back when the topic of the thread is Star Citizen, the game, again.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

I'm sorry if i was mis-understood on the message i transmitted.

I may be just overheating because we already had the exact same discussion on this and on past iterations of this thread.


So i'll just leave for now and come back when the topic of the thread is Star Citizen, the game, again.

You don't have to leave the entire Frontier forums - there are heaps of other good topics and threads going. There's no law to say that 98.5% of your posts must be in the Star Citizen thread of the Frontier forum!

 

[MaxLexandre]

You don't have to leave the entire Frontier forums - there are heaps of other good topics and threads going. There's no law to say that 98.5% of your posts must be in the Star Citizen thread of the Frontier forum!

But there's a law about talking about others / each other on posts on the Frontier Forum!

I just said that because that's one of the circular pointless topics that happen on this thread time to time that end on the same pace they started, as they are circular. So it's just just wait when we're talking about Star Citizen, the game, that is what this thread is supposedly here for, and just avoid getting dragged into this.

If it is to walk in circles, then better find somebody else for it, i'm already dizzy.