The Star Citizen Thread v5

[jmg]

Are you serious? I have specifically separated talking about a)whether Endavour or Merchantman was announced earlier, b)that Starfarer is an example how lack of mechanics doesn't stop CIG from releasing a ship made for those mechanics, It doesn't matter how along the trading is, it has nothing to do with Merchantman's release date.

my mistake, I thought you were referring back to my post on the phoenix. you said "as for your second point, the starfarer is..." I didn't mention the star farer in my post, I mentioned the phoenix. I agree with you on (a), and I don't think we disagree on (b)... did I say something to the contrary? reread my previous post... the BMM is a ship without a mission.. much like the star farer is...further agree that the starfarer has been released without any refueling mechanic (hence, my "ship without a mission" comment) you'll get no argument from me on that one.

 

[VidarSnipes]

my mistake, I thought you were referring back to my post on the phoenix. you said "as for your second point, the starfarer is..." I didn't mention the star farer in my post, I mentioned the phoenix. I agree with you on (a), and I don't think we disagree on (b)... did I say something to the contrary? reread my previous post... the BMM is a ship without a mission.. much like the star farer is... you'll get no argument from me on that one.

By "your second point" I was referring to this:

Not much of a point in releasing a trade ship though when trade mechanics haven't yet been implemented -- though that just points to a different issue

Starfarer is a fine example of the fact that CIG isn't afraid of releasing "a ship without a mission", so that means that there's something other than trading that stops Merchantman from being released. That's the only reason I have brought it up, and no disagreement here.

 

[ianw]

Well, like I said, we're all entitled to our opinion. I'm not entirely sure about your legal analysis is correct though... you've researched every jurisdiction in the U.S. on the issue? bravo.. I've been a lawyer for almost 20 years, and I could never have done it that quickly!! I can't speak to Brit law, so if that's what you're referring to, I'll defer to you on that.

Anyone else fly the warden recently? little dissapointed that you can't swap out the front guns, especially since now they appear a little nerfed. ...

It wasn't a legal analysis and I haven't researched any legal jurisdiction anywhere. But I'm very familiar with lawyers.

I'm just observing what's going on - consumer laws exist in many places - refunds are being given.

Do you really think they're doing refunding out of the goodness of the hearts?

Oh - and we're not entitledto an opinion - we may have an opinion - but if you believe you can only have an opinion when when you're entitled to one then you probably shouldn't bother having one.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

Hmmm I just wonder how come all this charitable people that"donate"money to the CIG love to brags about who had LTI and the better&bigger ship in their hangar???

 

[Tippis]

Do you really think they're doing refunding out of the goodness of the hearts?

That is the official CIG story, after all, and it's not like they have blatantly lied to their customers befooooh…

 

[Gnorok]

It wasn't a legal analysis and I haven't researched any legal jurisdiction anywhere. But I'm very familiar with lawyers.

I'm just observing what's going on - consumer laws exist in many places - refunds are being given.

Do you really think they're doing refunding out of the goodness of the hearts?

Oh - and we're not entitledto an opinion - we may have an opinion - but if you believe you can only have an opinion when when you're entitled to one then you probably shouldn't bother having one.

Maybe not out of the goodness of the hearts but just from the business side; the trouble with a disgruntled custumer isn´t worth the money.
In the EU we have very strict laws concerning customer protection. It would be very interesting to see how a judge would decide as most of the backers have already downloaded and used a part of the content.

Aside from the legal mumbojumbo it´s difficult for me to understand these people. When I back/purchase a game that is still in development I have the risk to get nothing out of it, may the company go bancrupt or the game design takes a direction I don´t like. On the other hand I may have advantages like early access, ingame goodies or just following the development. I won´t cry fool when the bad part of the risk happens. But that´s just my personal opinion.

 

[dayrth]

Oh - and we're not entitledto an opinion - we may have an opinion - but if you believe you can only have an opinion when when you're entitled to one then you probably shouldn't bother having one.

Of course we are entitled to an opinion. Any one tells me diferently and I am going to have a thing or two to say about it. I dont know what you are trying to say here.

 

[ianw]

Maybe not out of the goodness of the hearts but just from the business side; the trouble with a disgruntled custumer isn´t worth the money.
In the EU we have very strict laws concerning customer protection. It would be very interesting to see how a judge would decide as most of the backers have already downloaded and used a part of the content.

Aside from the legal mumbojumbo it´s difficult for me to understand these people. When I back/purchase a game that is still in development I have the risk to get nothing out of it, may the company go bancrupt or the game design takes a direction I don´t like. On the other hand I may have advantages like early access, ingame goodies or just following the development. I won´t cry fool when the bad part of the risk happens. But that´s just my personal opinion.

Well it seems pretty clear - what was sold, ceratinly in the early days - wasn't and hasn't been delivered. It's that simple. Though it's clear many people beleive or say they beleive - that it was a donation/gift. Consumer law just doesn't work that way in many places.

They aren't bothered about unhappy customers - if they were they wouldn't shunt things off to "concern" or roll them into a katamari. They don't give a stuff about having disgruntled customers - they have them by the bucketload.

The only time they pay attention is when someone puts their foot down and demands their money back - then they give it back because they know they have no choice.

That's how negotiation works - it's not about reaching a nice agreement - it's simply about discovering who has the biggest stick and whether they're prepared to use it.

That's why they refund - if they had any legal grounds to keep the money they would.

 

[tooterfish]

Maybe not out of the goodness of the hearts but just from the business side; the trouble with a disgruntled custumer isn´t worth the money.

The fact that they're were so reticent about refunds right up until one customer sic'd a DA on them tells me they don't give a hoot about disgruntled customers.

They do give a hoot about testing their claims in court though, which is why they capitulated "out of the good of their hearts" just as soon as the authorities got involved. Funny that.

 

[ianw]

Of course we are entitled to an opinion. Any one tells me diferently and I am going to have a thing or two to say about it. I dont know what you are trying to say here.

It's a pet thing of mine - I believe you should - and can - and ought to have an opinion. And I will respect yours and anyone elses - though I may well argue about it.

I just don't think you - or anyone - should feel they need permission to have one - which is - to me - what the word entitlement suggests.

Pendantry if you like.

 

[dayrth]

It's a pet thing of mine - I believe you should - and can - and ought to have an opinion. And I will respect yours and anyone elses - though I may well argue about it.

I just don't think you - or anyone - should feel they need permission to have one - which is - to me - what the word entitlement suggests.

Pendantry if you like.

I see. We have different definitions of entitled. I always took it to mean that if I was entitled to some thing then I did not need anyones permission.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Maybe not out of the goodness of the hearts but just from the business side; the trouble with a disgruntled custumer isn´t worth the money.
In the EU we have very strict laws concerning customer protection. It would be very interesting to see how a judge would decide as most of the backers have already downloaded and used a part of the content.

Aside from the legal mumbojumbo it´s difficult for me to understand these people. When I back/purchase a game that is still in development I have the risk to get nothing out of it, may the company go bancrupt or the game design takes a direction I don´t like. On the other hand I may have advantages like early access, ingame goodies or just following the development. I won´t cry fool when the bad part of the risk happens. But that´s just my personal opinion.

If I pre-ordered "Super Office 2018"*, downloaded it and found only the ASDF keys worked, along with pressing Q printing L on the screen, I wouldn't feel I had fair use out of the word-processor package and after 4 years would feel more than justified in seeking a refund. If the vendor then tried to tell me they had added wing-dings and in the future would have 77 fully fleshed out fonts, it would not sway my opinion...

*Other examples are available

 

[jmg]

Oh - and we're not entitled to an opinion

I disagree with your point, and you misunderstand with what I said.

We are entitled to an opinion. In our country anyway. its one of the fundamental premises of our country, and one of the things that makes this a such a great country. I'm not in any way an expert on foreign laws, and don't hold myself out to be, so you may be correct that other countries don't protect your rights in that area.

I do n't believe you can only have an opinion when you're entitled to one. Taking your example, In some country where you're not entitled to an opinion, you can still haveone. So you see, one simply doesn't follow the other as you stated.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why they refund - if they had any legal grounds to keep the money they would.

Nah. They're just really, REALLY nice guys.

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't a legal analysis and I haven't researched any legal jurisdiction anywhere.

And that my friend, ends that discussion. Next?

 

[jmg]

I see. We have different definitions of entitled. I always took it to mean that if I was entitled to some thing then I did not need anyones permission.

exactly. It's recognized in the U.S. at least that you're entitled to an opinion, and it's one of the many protections you're given (with some obvious limitations). So you don't need anyone's permission to speak your mind.
In other countries that don't recognize this protection, you may HAVE an opinion, but may not necessarily be ENTITLED to express it.

 

[Osmanthus]

I see. We have different definitions of entitled. I always took it to mean that if I was entitled to some thing then I did not need anyones permission.

I think his point is if you're entitled to an opinion then someone already has given you permission for it. I'm not 100% sure on the etymology but I think it's like being entitled to land - that is, someone has given you the title and deeds to it.

And it's true - your having an opinion shouldn't be contingent on someone having given you permission for it. but this is getting off topic !

 

[VidarSnipes]

And that my friend, ends that discussion. Next?

Yeah, I'm glad that we agree there's no need for a professional legal analysis to say that the sale being called a sale and being taxed as a sale is, in fact, a sale, and the received product can be refunded if it wasn't delivered in an advertised manner.
Now that we have put this unnecessary discussion behind us, here's a change of topic - it looks like folks on r/starcitizen (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5w27pe/about_262_production_schedule/) are tired of not being shown 2.6.2 production schedule for two weeks after the last schedule and a week after the release of 2.6.1. I wonder if CIG has an agenda in delaying this schedule as people on Reddit are implying or not. At least Hurricane's sale is going all right.

 

[Tippis]

In the EU we have very strict laws concerning customer protection. It would be very interesting to see how a judge would decide as most of the backers have already downloaded and used a part of the content.

At the moment, it's really simple: it has not yet been delivered. After all, the supposed producers themselves keep claiming that it's “(pre-)alpha,” which is a long long way from an actual full release version of what was purchased. As such, the 14-day window within which you can demand a refund at any point has not even started yet.

You don't even have to get into the whole mess of whether what you purchased was actually what was delivered in the end, because we're still years away from “delivered in the end.” The actual state of that mess is what will be a matter for discussion once those 14 days are up, some time in… oh, 2025 or so.

 

[Gnorok]

At the moment, it's really simple: it has not yet been delivered. After all, the supposed producers themselves keep claiming that it's “(pre-)alpha,” which is a long long way from an actual full release version of what was purchased. As such, the 14-day window within which you can demand a refund at any point has not even started yet.

You don't even have to get into the whole mess of whether what you purchased was actually what was delivered in the end, because that's what'll be a matter for discussion once those 14 days are up, some time in, oh, 2025 or so.

Is that your personal interpretation of EU law or do you refer to something like a court decision?

 

[AJW]

At the moment, it's really simple: it has not yet been delivered. After all, the supposed producers themselves keep claiming that it's “(pre-)alpha,”...

They are now. A few months back they were trying to refuse refunds on the basis that the game was substantially complete.

 

[Tippis]

Is that your personal interpretation of EU law or do you refer to something like a court decision?

I refer to EU law as stated by EU law and implemented in national law throughout the union: you have 14 days after final, full delivery of the product where you can void the purchase and request a refund. Around here, that's also assuming they've informed you of this right before delivery, otherwise, it's 14 days after you receive that information or no later than 1 year after final delivery.

They are now. A few months back they were trying to refuse refunds on the basis that the game was substantially complete.

I know. That's probably not a winning strategy either since it'll be pretty easy for the customer to prove that what was delivered did not match what was ordered. Never mind trying to actually say that with a straight face while also having official alpha-version patch notes…