It's not a law... Also it's not a "donation" as you're supposed to receive something in return (a reward).
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
It's not a law... Also it's not a "donation" as you're supposed to receive something in return (a reward).
I think it's far more likely that they would rather not go to court since the crux of the refusal hinges on "funds were already used", leaving them open to the inevitable "so, show me". They can get away with refusing to show financials to the backers, but not if they were part of a court case.
Why should they have to test their policies? Why should they have to be the first to argue in front of a judge and be the first to set precedence in terms of refunding for crowdfunding? Why do you levy accusations that if they don't fight, they're guilty?
The only expert I know of in the field of trying valiantly to make massive space games, but largely failing is Derek Smart*.
Derek thinks SC is doomed to fail and has been for quite some time.
(*no offense meant Derek I've played and enjoyed some of your games, if you had 117 million I'm sure they'd be much better)
What makes Dr. Smart an expert?
Demonstrating their "legal" terms and conditions are nothing more than hot air and that they know they don't have a leg to stand on.
Actions speak louder than words.
Last edited:
It's not harsh, it's reality. It's exactly what's going on. This is a broken incredibly limited tech demo and they are putting it free 2 play sessions before they have even a few systems that can be traveled between and do the basics of most intended game mechanics after a few years of dev and over a year of being in alpha. The"progress" is abysmal and the only reason for this is to get more "special snowflakes" because they blew through the funds.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Really? You clearly did not comprehend that post.
There was something to comprehend in that post?
Last edited:
The only US court case that comes to mind is the one where the proprietor of their kickstarted campaign jumped ship and defrauded everyone involved. So the only time this can be brought up in court is if CIG stopped developing their game. If someone were to use this case, all CIG would have to do is show the court their progress from the kickstarter until now. AFAIK, anything financial would have to go through third-party audit (I'm a little hazy about this so I don't know for certain but one of my parents is an attorney so I'll ask about this next time I talk to them).
Whoosh.
So, what is it that i missed to comprehend?
Seems to me that those three are the most damning, everything else seems to be conjecture/petty grievances
Obviously you haven't worked in the customer service industry; that goes on all the time. If you're butthurt about those, most likely correct, labels than it might be wise to grow a thicker skin.
The point.
Exactly what i expected, refusing to provide an explanation just shows that there was no point to begin with.
You could try reading it again if you like, but to be honest this is funnier.
You could just make your point, but you can't because you have none.
Ha, that's rich! Derek Smart an expert on game development. He may be a failed game developer but he certainly doesn't have the chops to comment about what is successful and what isn't. He can most certainly comment on CIG's style of development but I personally don't put much stock in his opinion since he really hasn't created a successful game nor has he worked on a AAA game, afaik.
How long do you want to go on with this?
And neither has CIG/RSI. ("Worked on an AAA games" is subjective as SC/SQ42 do not have that "AAA" level of quality and completion as of this time)
Just thought I'd point that out, carry on all
- Status