The Star Citizen Thread v 4

[Neo-ST]

Well, I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure the argument "We've used your money, hence you are not entitled to a refund" is not a valid one.

What I understood from their answer is this:
The only way to get a refund is if game development gets canceled or abandoned.
As long as there is an "ongoing development", anyone who purchases anything from RSI, is unable to ask for a refund and they're not obliged to define the completion date or to deliver the product at all.
It's every shady businessman's dream

Sorry to hear that Neo, however you need to keep pushing if you want a refund. Just keep it polite and use facts.
I would also check with my bank / credit card / pay pal if you can do a charge back.

have you been playing the game for many hours? they do check your time log for sure. Being a loud mouth on the RSI forums also helps,
just don't get banned

Posting Support emails do not help your case, so I would just remove it before continuing.

In my case it took a long time to get it back, its was not easy, and I head all the excuses from someone was sick, then fall off a bike, then, then, then, then.........

Hey Lys, I haven't played the "game" for months now. Prior to that, I might have 2 hours in total of gameplay. It just sucks and if I have to make myself play it, then it's no good, so I didn't.

I think what Lysander is meaning, is that whatever small amount of goodwill there is from CiG, will rapidly disappear if they think they are being tried in the court of public opinion.
Save everything up and write a blog after the conclusion

I no longer rely on their good will, nor will I suck up to them just to get a refund.
I think I made my issue transparent with them, they had their say, shown their true face and closed the door.
Sapienti sat.

 

[Bruce Warren]

If it was me I wouldn't post your best evidence on the interwebz.

This is nothing to do with NDAs and nothing to do with good will with CIG. Rather it's because I wouldn't want to run the risk, however minor, of the evidence being ruled inadmissible by the judge.

I'm no lawyer, not by any means, and I don't know which jurisdiction you are in, but if it was me better than sorry. 'sides why would you want to give the enemy a heads up as to what they have to defend against?

 

[Tuub t Tute]

I no longer rely on their good will, nor will I suck up to them just to get a refund.
I think I made my issue transparent with them, they had their say, shown their true face and closed the door.
Sapienti sat.

Aye sorry, I didn't come across too clearly. My thought was that if they can use any excuse to refuse a refund, they may well try and play the "poor us" card, if one of their band of little helpers reports back that you are posting their conversations up. I think that would be further underhand behaviour from them and I do not defend it.

At this stage I would discount nothing in how far they will go to avoid refunds.

 

[ZeeWolf]

IF SC fails, it will reflect badly on CIG, rather than crowdfunding in general. They raised around 2% of their total through Kickstarter.

CIG are not a successful company until SC makes money, and CR has said repeatedly that all backer funding goes towards making the game, right? So there's ZERO profit until people buy post release. A shonky product dramatically reduces the chances of success, because most of the customers will have already bought in, and will be getting the game anyway. I think long term support for SC could be a huge problem.

You make a good point but I wonder, are they actually zero profit or deferred profit? It's probably been discussed here before. Realistically they sell concept ships which people purchase and then they use the cash generated from that on actually making a video game. Companies typically invest profit back into expansion, so it isn't so different. I think there is an argument that CIG is already a profitable business. I don't know what the tax man says.

It's only that they keep telling us that everything goes "back into the game" something which is difficult to prove and not all that extraordinary when you think about what they are supposed to do as a company. "All the money goes back into the game" can mean anything from staff salaries to the office Christmas party and even that big door <ducks>. What do other companies that only make one game do with profits? OK maybe people argue that they don't put it into marketing, but they do seem to have some mighty nice looking sets for making YouTube videos and I'm sure the people putting together all the videos, newsletters and web-site content don't do it out of charity. So I'm always baffled by the concept of "it all goes back into the game" as having real tangible significance.

 

[dsmart]

Today is Star Citizen "GET A REFUND!" day. Scroll to the bottom for today's updated information.

http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/star-citizen-tos-v1-1-expiration/#post-2778

 

[Knightshark]

Sorry for just dropping in without reading the dozens of latest posts, but is there a balanced video reviewing the state of the game with the latest 2.4 release?

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Sorry for just dropping in without reading the dozens of latest posts, but is there a balanced video reviewing the state of the game with the latest 2.4 release?

2.4 is still in the PTU, it hasn't been released to the PU.

 

[Knightshark]

2.4 is still in the PTU, it hasn't been released to the PU.

But if it's in PTU a lot of players should have access, right? And there is not NDA like with these Illuminati releases, right?

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Well mr Nowak stopped posting here months ago; Max stopped posting as soon as Mr Smart arrived and since then the only Pro-SC accounts posting here spend all their time discussing their nemesis and barely mention the game at all.

So the only vids you are likely to see round here are the "blooper reel" type ones of bugs set to comedy music. Not really balanced

 

[ianw]

Well mr Nowak stopped posting here months ago; Max stopped posting as soon as Mr Smart arrived and since then the only Pro-SC accounts posting here spend all their time discussing their nemesis and barely mention the game at all.

So the only vids you are likely to see round here are the "blooper reel" type ones of bugs set to comedy music. Not really balanced

There's tons of "pro" stuff on yootoob under SC 2.4 - for the antidote I'd recommend anything by Major Tom.

 

[Knightshark]

There's tons of "pro" stuff on yootoob under SC 2.4 - for the antidote I'd recommend anything by Major Tom.

Yeah, i saw lots of let's play kind of stuff, but i was looking for a more of an concise overview.

 

[lysan]

I think what Lysander is meaning, is that whatever small amount of goodwill there is from CiG, will rapidly disappear if they think they are being tried in the court of public opinion.
Save everything up and write a blog after the conclusion

You got it

 

[ZeeWolf]

I'm sure the legendary Scott Manley will look at it when it's available for backers. He's usually pretty balanced IMHO

 

[lysan]

“We are not able to have Chris at the PC Gaming Show due to his commitments in the UK making the game,” a Cloud Imperium Games representative told us via email. “I informed PC Gamer of this several weeks ago. It’s important to note that we were never committed to be at E3 as an exhibitor or in any other capacity (except for the PCG show). In fact we’ve never had a booth at E3. Our focus has pretty much always been Gamescom, and it will be again this year.”

Source

Well, one picture comes to mind.

<Please don't>

 

[ianw]

I'm sure the legendary Scott Manley will look at it when it's available for backers. He's usually pretty balanced IMHO

Yeah - had a quick look at him but nothing there - he must have normal PTU access no?

Possibly not an Avocado though..

 

[Stigbob]

Aye sorry, I didn't come across too clearly. My thought was that if they can use any excuse to refuse a refund, they may well try and play the "poor us" card, if one of their band of little helpers reports back that you are posting their conversations up. I think that would be further underhand behaviour from them and I do not defend it.

At this stage I would discount nothing in how far they will go to avoid refunds.

It's worth thinking about, but an alternate view is that a weaselly worded "refund refused" e-mail circulating on forums where space game enthusiasts hang out isn't good advertising. The more coverage a refund dispute gets the more likely CIG may be to conclude this guy is making us look bad pay him back in the hope that will shut him up, or possibly throw their toys out of the pram in public like they did with Dr Smart and the Escapist.

There's something else to consider, they may be refusing simply because they have no choice. I make a lot of (bad) jokes about mo-cap, I do this because mo-cap done once is very, very expensive, more redone mo-cap than you can shake a stick at could be cripplingly expensive even for a hundred million dollar company*. "Refund denied" may come straight from CIG's banker.

*I am a mo-cap expert I sometimes watch DVD extra's

 

[Truga]

What I understood from their answer is this:
The only way to get a refund is if game development gets canceled or abandoned.
As long as there is an "ongoing development", anyone who purchases anything from RSI, is unable to ask for a refund and they're not obliged to define the completion date or to deliver the product at all.
It's every shady businessman's dream

Yeah, but unfurtunately for them, that's not how laws in the EU work.

See this:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/rights-contracts/directive/index_en.htm

Article 18
Delivery

1. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise on the time of delivery, the trader shall deliver the goods by transferring the physical possession or control of the goods to the consumer without undue delay, but not later than 30 days from the conclusion of the contract.

2. Where the trader has failed to fulfil his obligation to deliver the goods at the time agreed upon with the consumer or within the time limit set out in paragraph 1, the consumer shall call upon him to make the delivery within an additional period of time appropriate to the circumstances. If the trader fails to deliver the goods within that additional period of time, the consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract.

The first subparagraph shall not be applicable to sales contracts where the trader has refused to deliver the goods or where delivery within the agreed delivery period is essential taking into account all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract or where the consumer informs the trader, prior to the conclusion of the contract, that delivery by or on a specified date is essential. In those cases, if the trader fails to deliver the goods at the time agreed upon with the consumer or within the time limit set out in paragraph 1, the consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract immediately.

3. Upon termination of the contract, the trader shall, without undue delay, reimburse all sums paid under the contract.

4. In addition to the termination of the contract in accordance with paragraph 2, the consumer may have recourse to other remedies provided for by national law.

As you may remember, CIG was supposed to deliver SQ42 by November 2014, with a possible delay of up to a full year (you agreed to this when pledging), so at the latest 30. November 2015. They've since changed the terms of service (that you probably never agreed to), but even the new ones are out of date now (they deadline in them expired yesterday). You're well in your right to demand a full refund.

Send them a formal letter about this, with delivery confirmation, and if they still refuse to give you your money back or don't write back at all, go to your bank, show them your documentation and you'll get your money back. Though I'm 99% sure it won't get to that, chargebacks are really scary, and getting more than a few gets you blacklisted from payment processors really quickly, and CIG is very much dependant on continuing cash flow.

 

[Backer42]

Moving out of KS is a double edged sword, for consumers (us), because it can be both good and bad at the same time. Good because the project can get expanded and funded even further, bad because KS rules no longer apply (developer needs to finish the game within the deadline or refunds need to be provided), but instead company's own rules do. In this case, they can continue "developing" the game indefinitely while raking in money at the same time, without ever delivering a complete product at all.
"Complete" by definition means it's done, funding is no longer needed and the product is publicly available for purchase through regular channels.

But "moving out of KS" doesn't apply for you, as a KS backer your are in a fine situation: You paid for the product advertised on KS and the ToS stuff doesn't apply to you either.

The product in the KS project description isn't there (and never will be), therefore "Star Citizen" is a failed Kickstarter project by all means.

Your money got wasted and ongoing funding is on a sharp decline, that is the reason, why you must act fast and with full force bringing in all authorities you can.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

/off topic/
Do I need to remind you guys that we are at the page 666..........shhh...try to not disturb him 2 much........

 

[StuartGT]

As far as 1 million backers, with 114,683,909 dollars raised that 1 million backer number is probabally close to the truth.

Welcome to the FDev forums

UEE Fleet is currently at 981675: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

Disco Lando confirmed back in November that UEE Fleet is "number of ships sold": https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/5945966/#Comment_5945966

As every game package includes at least one ship, and many backers own more than one ship, the backer number has to be lower than UEE Fleet.

Somewhere between 600k and 800k backers is a reasonable estimation.