The Star Citizen Thread v5

[jmg]

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

I know, lots of legal opinions floating around here
I thought I knew a thing or two about commercial sales, but apparently not.

Anyway, anyone up for some snub-nose fighting tonight? Our org is doing some dogfights at kareah in 85x's... stock configuration. And bonus points if you land it in a caterpillar

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I'm glad that we agree .

Yes, I agree there's no need to discuss this further.. My point has been made, and I'm sure, very clear. Moving on!

 

[Knightshark]

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.

Al least in Germany this law does not hold for digital purchases. I cannot refund any purchase on the PSN store or any other store except Steam, which gives refunds for games played less than 2 hours.

 

[jmg]

Al least in Germany this law does not hold for digital purchases. I cannot refund any purchase on the PSN store or any other store except Steam, which gives refunds for games played less than 2 hours.

[joke]Wait, you mean each EU country has different laws? god gawd man, next you're going to tell me each state in the U.S. defines commercial sales differently!!! say it isn't so!![/joke]

 

[Stigbob]

I know, lots of legal opinions floating around here
I thought I knew a thing or two about commercial sales, but apparently not.

I thought you were under the impression that you'd donated a pledge or something.

 

[jmg]

I thought you were under the impression that you'd donated a pledge or something.

nope, I'm not under the impression that I donated a pledge.
I donated money to CIG, otherwise known as a pledge.

 

[Tippis]

Al least in Germany this law does not hold for digital purchases. I cannot refund any purchase on the PSN store or any other store except Steam, which gives refunds for games played less than 2 hours.

Someone could probably challenge Sony on that, since that EU exception is meant for digital content (e.g. streaming or downloaded video), where the download counts as consumption. Steam is just being extra generous after Australia slapped them around (hard).

nope, I'm not under the impression that I donated a pledge.
I donated money to CIG, otherwise known as a pledge.

A donation is not a pledge. A purchase is not a donation.
So no, you did none of that — you purchased a virtual good. Any other impression is false.

 

[Dooguk]

Are trying to make... That was just the reveal trailer. I think especially in this thread most have some experience with promises from developers

Only posted it because I haven't seen it mentioned as a threat to Star Citizen. Hellios is obviously another game people want to back. The more Roberts spends his time polishing jpegs, these other developers will turn the heads of frustrated backers.

 

[jmg]

let me ask a serious question here -- a lot of this to me really is nonsense.. to be honest, I really don't care whether some people view giving money to CIG as a donation or as a purchase. I view it as a donation, and that should be the end of it. If someone else looks at it as a sale, so be it. It doesn't really matter.

But Seriously-- and I'm asking for a non-flaming answer, one community member to another -- why is this such a sore spot? I'm really looking for the background for this issue, because it very clearly is a very sore spot in here.
Why? What is the background/root of this issue? It has to matter for some reason, other than just arguing a point... does it?

 

[Tippis]

But Seriously-- and I'm asking for a non-flaming answer, one community member to another -- why is this such a sore spot?

This has already been explained. You've already read the reason. Your immediate reaction was to try to control the discussion away from that explanation.

I really don't care

Yeah, no. If you hadn't been so adamant in trying to control the discussion, this might have been believable, but instead, here we are…

 

[Gnorok]

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.

So it is your personal interpretation of EU law (refering to a law without knowing or having examples if and how it should be applied doesn´t help).

For me it´s quite simple. When I back a game in the early design phase it is my free decision. I know the risk and I am responsible for what I do. If I don´t get what I expect I just have to blame me.
There may be legal options but the clear advantage of my position is a) I don´t need a lawyer b) I don´t get grumpy

 

[jmg]

This has already been explained. You've already read the reason. Your immediate reaction was to try to control the discussion away from that explanation.

so..anyone want to enlighten me? I really am curious as to why this matters so much to the community. Whether I agree or not, I don't think anyone really cares, but I am curious as to the root of this dispute.

I mean, we can all get into a discussion over whether you're getting 40fps or 25fps in Star citizen, or whether the warden is a better dogfighter than the SH, but I doubt anyone would care. Why does this particualr debate matter so much? Why does it matter to people if giving money to CIG is buying a ship or supporting the development of a game?

- - - Updated - - -

So it is your personal interpretation of EU law (refering to a law without knowing or having examples if and how it should be applied doesn´t help).

For me it´s quite simple. When I back a game in the early design phase it is my free decision. I know the risk and I am responsible for what I do. If I don´t get what I expect I just have to blame me.
There may be legal options but the clear advantage of my position is a) I don´t need a lawyer b) I don´t get grumpy

Exactly. and I'll also add that the people in-game that view paying CIG as "support," and not buying a ship, are the ones that are enjoying the game more and not getting crabby. IF you look at giving money to CIG as buying a ship, OF COURSE you're going to be dissapointed. I'd be dissapointed too if I put a dollar in a vending machine and all I got was a promise of a soda some time in the future. But that's not how I view giving money to CIG... it's support for a game that I love. In return, I get the game that I can't wait to play. Period. As a bonus I get a really cool ship. It's really more a matter of perspective to me.

 

[milligna]

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???

Very bizarre to see people bragging over who gave a hasbeen conman more of their money for... nothing. People desperate for status desperate to drop the word "concierge" at every opportunity. It's a nauseating subculture... CIG did a great job appealing to people who want to feel special, their milking machine has been pretty effective. I especially love when they go into the stock defense: "How dare you tell me how to spend my money! It means nothing to me! Nothing! Forget all the threads talking about husbands desperate to keep ship sales secret from their wives, I can afford it because I'm pretending to be rich! Wealthy people are known for buying jpgs to tech demos, that's what all the elites do!"

 

[Tippis]

So it is your personal interpretation of EU law (refering to a law without knowing or having examples if and how it should be applied doesn´t help).

Nope. It's my country's interpretation of EU law, backed by the law itself, backed by the fact that CIG folds every time the law is referenced in relation to refunds, so it's rather their interpretation and application of the law as well.

When I back a game in the early design phase it is my free decision.

Luckily, the law doesn't care and holds the seller responsible either way, since it is there to protect you against the unscrupulous sellers who take advantage of that “free decision” of yours.

so..anyone want to enlighten me?

I already did. Do you have any particular reason to keep dismissing that answer?

 

[Dooguk]

Of all the charities in the world I could donate to, Chris Roberts isn't one of them.

 

[Stigbob]

nope, I'm not under the impression that I donated a pledge.
I donated money to CIG, otherwise known as a pledge.

Charity is not a viable funding method, unless you run a bunny sanctuary.

let me ask a serious question here -- a lot of this to me really is nonsense.. to be honest, I really don't care whether some people view giving money to CIG as a donation or as a purchase. I view it as a donation, and that should be the end of it. If someone else looks at it as a sale, so be it. It doesn't really matter.

If the government charges sales tax on it, it's still a purchase irrespective of inaccurate labels.

But Seriously-- and I'm asking for a non-flaming answer, one community member to another -- why is this such a sore spot? I'm really looking for the background for this issue, because it very clearly is a very sore spot in here.
Why? What is the background/root of this issue? It has to matter for some reason, other than just arguing a point... does it?

People have received death threats for asking for or getting refunds by cultists saying it's just a donation your not entitled to your money back.

People have been repeatedly lied to about their rights as customers by random strangers on the internet claiming to be experts.

People are sick of lies, broken promises, missed dates, threats and the cult.

But it's not a sore spot for people who've refunded or never bought in, it just shakes the confidence of the overly invested.

 

[jmg]

Nope. It's my country's interpretation of EU law, backed by the law itself, backed by the fact that CIG folds every time the law is referenced in relation to refunds, so it's rather their interpretation and application of the law as well.


Luckily, the law doesn't care and holds the seller responsible either way, since it is there to protect you against the unscrupulous sellers who take advantage of that “free decision” of yours.


I already did. Do you have any particular reason to keep dismissing that answer?

I havne't seen the answer. If I missed it in the 20 or so pages that is this discussion, then please do me the favor of repeating the answer. I really am curious. why does this matter so much?
This really isn't a trick question, I really want to know. I personally don't care if others are going to view giving money to CIG as a purchase -- I really do think they'll be dissapointed and I disagree that it is a purchase, but so be it. There's so many other things I've seen debated in these pages, why is this particular dispute such a tender spot?

 

[LeSabre]

So it is your personal interpretation of EU law (refering to a law without knowing or having examples if and how it should be applied doesn´t help).

For me it´s quite simple. When I back a game in the early design phase it is my free decision. I know the risk and I am responsible for what I do. If I don´t get what I expect I just have to blame me.
There may be legal options but the clear advantage of my position is a) I don´t need a lawyer b) I don´t get grumpy

Apologise for the slightly away from SC topic, but for those who can't be bothered:

2015 consumer rights act :

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act#the-consumer-rights-act2015

Is just one part or example of laws and legislation that are used throughout the EU to protect consumers. There are many more avenues to follow when it comes to getting a refund on digital goods be they undelivered, unfit for purpose, not as described by the seller. You don't need to cite a precedent when the law is very clear on these matters.

Honestly there are literally thousands of pages of laws relating to digital goods in the EU, all avalible on the internet freely. If you have a problem with how someone interprets the law then check with it yourself.

 

[Tippis]

I havne't seen the answer.

Yes you have.
I know this because you responded to the post where I gave it to you; the post in which you dismissed it and tried to control the discussion.

Go back and read it if you're curious and want to know.

 

[milligna]

Of all the charities in the world I could donate to, Chris Roberts isn't one of them.

Needy 90s hasbeens have to be able to afford trips to Monaco SOMEHOW. For just the price of a cup of coffee a day, you can sponsor a hasbeen to wave his fingers around and promise stuff to gullible people. Please: give generously. Operators are standing by to order really tacky airplane-themed furniture at eye-watering prices.

 

[jmg]

If the government charges sales tax on it, it's still a purchase irrespective of inaccurate labels.

That's a very good point-- maybe in the EU you're charged VAT, but in the U.S., THERE IS NO sales tax on pledges .... so... I guess by your logic... not a sale, eh?

I think I see the finer issue here.. there really is a distinction between the U.S. and EU here. I can't speak to the EU. I look at it as a donation, and apparently looks like I'm in the right -- there is a distinction. .



- - - Updated - - -

Yes you have.
I know this because you responded to the post where I gave it to you; the post in which you dismissed it and tried to control the discussion.

Go back and read it if you're curious and want to know.

I did, and I don't see it. sorry pal. Is it a problem with the strength of the position? If so, I understand why you don't want to repost. don't worry about it, mate.