The Star Citizen Thread v 4

[Stigbob]

Not officially, first it was 2014, on 2012 KS, then i don't think there was another one until 2014, where it was put SC was set to release on 2016, the only date today we see clearly advertised, was SQ42's 2016.

Chris Roberts got into a sulk after backers foolishly expected him to keep his word for the last release date (2014) so now he doesn't give them.

SQ42 is not coming out this year, and SC is not coming out this decade (if either ever appear). At this (late) stage anyone taking CIG/RSI marketing rubbish like a release date seriously obviously doesn't understand the way this games being developed.

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

Why would CIG change the length of this period, just before it runs out, if they can just claim the estimated release date is shifted to the 2377 AD and be absolved of any responsibility?

Indeed. I forgot to mention it, that is the other way out of this for CIG. Simply update the estimated delivery date at the website.

"...delivery date communicated to you on the Website.."
"...WWW.ROBERTSSPACEINDUSTRIES.COM WEBSITE AND RELATED WEBPAGES (THE “WEBSITE”)..."

For info: https://web.archive.org/web/20150221120446/https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos

 

[MaxLexandre]

*Mod hat off



Indeed. I forgot to mention it, that is the other way out of this for CIG. Simply update the estimated delivery date at the website.

"...delivery date communicated to you on the Website.."
"...WWW.ROBERTSSPACEINDUSTRIES.COM WEBSITE AND RELATED WEBPAGES (THE “WEBSITE”)..."

For info: https://web.archive.org/web/20150221120446/https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos

They already had when they said on 2014, SC was due to release on 2016. It's not mentioned on the TOS or anything, but that's what they announced.


You're ignoring that the footage where this dates were claimed, was posted on the website.

 

[kilvenny]

One of the problems here is if you play the game you generally agree at some point (usually download) to the current terms and conditions, because you assented to the new terms the old ones no longer stand.

To be honest the whole farce of changing terms and conditions runs on until someone has the financial muscle to get the lawyers involved and let the claim and counter claim saga begin.

This is where the minimum viable product becomes significant and why PG is vital because if you start looking at the stretch goals, quite a few of them can be fulfilled with some PG landing areas because the stretch goal info is quite sparse in what it says. System x only needs to be a landing zone with a planet it in the background and it satisfies the stretch goal.

If you read the stretch goals SQ42 explicitly states the number of missions to be included. There is much less wiggle room here than in the main game and this is why it needs to be focused on. Of course what it doesn't tell you is how much is in a mission.

Interesting times!

 

[MaxLexandre]

By that logic we could have put Frontier on court, because they dropped the Offline Mode and it was promised.

It's nothing but details, such happens constantly around games, how can such things even stand on court? Maybe on Derek Smart's imaginary court cases and FTC investigations that were supposedly already ongoing.

 

[kilvenny]

By that logic we could have put Frontier on court, because they dropped the Offline Mode and it was promised.

It's nothing but details, such happens constantly around games, how can such things even stand on court? Maybe on Derek Smart's imaginary court cases and FTC investigations that were supposedly already ongoing.

Why do you think FD agreed to the refunds? Quite simply because it was written in the deliverables and any lawyer would tell you that it was a material deliverable. Of course they could argue the case, but is it worth the cost? Why do you think it is that now FD promise very little until they reach a point where they know its deliverable.

 

[Stigbob]

By that logic we could have put Frontier on court, because they dropped the Offline Mode and it was promised.

It's nothing but details, such happens constantly around games, how can such things even stand on court? Maybe on Derek Smart's imaginary court cases and FTC investigations that were supposedly already ongoing.

That's a truly absurd comparison, you really are grasping at straws now. You do realize that ED is a released game, and that it was released in the year star citizen was originally supposed to come out.

ED is the absolute opposite end of the competent development scale from SC, the only comparisons possible show SC in a very bad light.

 

[MaxLexandre]

Why do you think FD agreed to the refunds? Quite simply because it was written in the deliverables and any lawyer would tell you that it was a material deliverable. Of course they could argue the case, but is it worth the cost? Why do you think it is that now FD promise very little until they reach a point where they know its deliverable.

Even if it arrived on court i wouldn't believe it was any matter of loosing or winning, yet about costs, of course it's cheaper to refund.

And refunds is also the same policy that CIG ran through, as we known, last year, where there was a clear opportunity to get refunds and so on. Frontier also had that window. Now to be known is what will happen rewarding refunds from now on, and that is where i defend CIG should not be fighting backers who would have the right to refund their pledge.

 

[ianw]

Even if it arrived on court i wouldn't believe it was any matter of loosing or winning, yet about costs, of course it's cheaper to refund.

And refunds is also the same policy that CIG ran through, as we known, last year, where there was a clear opportunity to get refunds and so on. Frontier also had that window. Now to be known is what will happen rewarding refunds from now on, and that is where i defend CIG should not be fighting backers who would have the right to refund their pledge.

That's the difference - it took them a while but in the end FD faced up to the obvious and dished out the refunds.

CIG on the other hand are wriggling every which way they can to weasel their way out of refunds by re-inventing every definition of every relevant word on the ToS.

Once you start dealing with your customers by ToS it's already way past gone horribly wrong.

If - as we are lead to believe - everything is rosy in the financial garden then refunds shouldn't be an issue - and that potential cost should be factored in to the budget of any project - especially one as open to to interpretation as this one.

If there are actually insufficient funds and they actually can't afford the refunds as some are asserting - well that's a whole other level of poor planning and management.

 

[MaxLexandre]

That's the difference - it took them a while but in the end FD faced up to the obvious and dished out the refunds.

CIG on the other hand are wriggling every which way they can to weasel their way out of refunds by re-inventing every definition of every relevant word on the ToS.

Once you start dealing with your customers by ToS it's already way past gone horribly wrong.

If - as we are lead to believe - everything is rosy in the financial garden then refunds shouldn't be an issue - and that potential cost should be factored in to the budget of any project - especially one as open to to interpretation as this one.

If there are actually insufficient funds and they actually can't afford the refunds as some are asserting - well that's a whole other level of poor planning and management.

But Star Citizen being a game under development, it's not failed to its, on the case, Stretch Goals, until it actually does.

It's the difference between having to say "we will not have this X feature on SC, even though it was a stretch goal" <<< that would be complicated to get away with, without refunds, if it gets contested back.

The MVP is also a situation that is not easy to deal with on the matter, because not all Stretch Goals are going to be in by 1.0, hear by they are still liable, after 1.0, to deliver what's to be delivered. If Frontier said instead, "We will have the offline mode, as one free update post-release", they would not have any need to provide refunds, but on that case, the feature was really dropped.

 

[Asp Explorer]

If - as we are lead to believe - everything is rosy in the financial garden then refunds shouldn't be an issue - and that potential cost should be factored in to the budget of any project - especially one as open to to interpretation as this one.

If there are actually insufficient funds and they actually can't afford the refunds as some are asserting - well that's a whole other level of poor planning and management.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history

3 grand cash in the bank at that filing

 

[ianw]

But Star Citizen being a game under development, it's not failed to its, on the case, Stretch Goals, until it actually does.

It's the difference between having to say "we will not have this X feature on SC, even though it was a stretch goal" <<< that would be complicated to get away with, without refunds, if it gets contested back.

The MVP is also a situation that is not easy to deal with on the matter, because not all Stretch Goals are going to be in by 1.0, hear by they are still liable, after 1.0, to deliver what's to be delivered. If Frontier said instead, "We will have the offline mode, as one free update post-release", they would not have any need to provide refunds, but on that case, the feature was really dropped.

As I said - terms and conditions.

I bought in early 2013 - I should have had the game long ago. I didn't agree to all the stretch goals and other .

I want my money back.

 

[MaxLexandre]

As I said - terms and conditions.

I bought in early 2013 - I should have had the game long ago. I didn't agree to all the stretch goals and other .

I want my money back.

You haven't attempted to get it on the refund window opportunity that had taken place last year?

 

[kilvenny]

Digital content must be: Of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and as described by the seller. It is this last point that the stretch goals factor in. The moment you say a stretch goal is not part of the MVP you have not delivered and anyone who bought while that stretch goal existed is entitled to a refund if they want it. If you push a stretch goal beyond release you varied the contract. One ship or one system might not be considered material, but say 50 systems not 100 would be significant. Again as I said its all down to the lawyers claim and counter claiming while two cash registers ching ching .

 

[ianw]

Yup - got knocked back by some about you wouldn't expect us to take money out of our staff salary to cover the refund.

ETA @ Max

 

[MaxLexandre]

Digital content must be: Of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and as described by the seller. It is this last point that the stretch goals factor in. The moment you say a stretch goal is not part of the MVP you have not delivered and anyone who bought while that stretch goal existed is entitled to a refund if they want it. If you push a stretch goal beyond release you varied the contract. One ship or one system might not be considered material, but say 50 systems not 100 would be significant. Again as I said its all down to the lawyers claim and counter claiming while two cash registers ching ching .

Not at all, they can still claim liability to deliver the 100 Solar Systems, after release, as free game updates. What they can't claim on the version number 1.0 is, "we've delivered all our promises". Different would be saying that they cut 50 systems from the game and that's it, on there they are failing with the stretch goal.

Yup - got knocked back by some about you wouldn't expect us to take money out of our staff salary to cover the refund.

ETA @ Max

Oh, that is interesting, so many people got them during that time, from basic packages to refunds of thousands, as it's known.

 

[Stigbob]

As I said - terms and conditions.

I bought in early 2013 - I should have had the game long ago. I didn't agree to all the stretch goals and other .

I want my money back.

I suspect the majority of backer money went on mo-cap with a-listers, renting mo-cap studio's, mo-cap camera's, building mo-cap studio's, mo-cap re-shoots, more mo-cap re-shoots, new mo-cap studio's, new mo-cap camera's and an overly ornate reception door.

Low priority things like a playable game or refunds have not been considered.

 

[ianw]

Oh, that is interesting, so many people got them during that time, from basic packages to refunds of thousands, as it's known.

Well yes - I've read that too - but I can assure you at least one person didn't.

ETA - it's not even the money really - though frankly I'd rather get it back so I can at least buy beer and turn it into waste products - it's just the constant unremitting stream of that emanates from CIG about everything.

It occurred to me the other day how totally messed up this whole thing is when I was trying to explain it to a gamer friend who knows nothing about SC and I didn't even know where to start.

 

[VidarSnipes]

As far as I remember, people had to fight tooth and claw to get any kind of refund, were told they will get back just a part of their purchase, were delayed until the 14 end of day grace period (counted from the release of 2.0 tech demo) and then denied it, and in some cases required long arguments with customer support.

 

[MaxLexandre]

It occurred to me the other day how totally messed up this whole thing is when I was trying to explain it to a gamer friend who knows nothing about SC and I didn't even know where to start.

That's easy! PG Birds, Fidelity, Immersion, Shiny Ships, Space Jacuzzi! But seriously when i describe SC is quite simple, Space Sim MMO, gameplay sets on ofc flying ships / combat, crew ships, FPS, with the point of the MMO being surrounding the economy. Now friend asks back "should buy into it now?", i'll just say no, it's best to back it when you see what it is currently, is what you want to play already.

As far as I remember, people had to fight tooth and claw to get any kind of refund, were told they will get back just a part of their purchase, were delayed until the 14 end of day grace period (counted from the release of 2.0 tech demo) and then denied it, and in some cases required long arguments with customer support.

The refund window was WAY before that, it was during the summer last year, on there the reports were refunds being processed without any big fuss about it. It was after that interview CR gave to one website where he talked about Refunds and how many have CIG refunded to date (2.5K up until mid-2015).