Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

'cause a) no money has changed hands yet; the publishers stand to lose money, NOT the prospective customers,

Actually, a lot of people have preordered. I have and my son has. However, you should know the risk is all on you when you preorder. Some SC backers seem to assume there is no risk, that given enough time, CR will deliver on all their dreams, even if it takes another 10 or 20 years... but don't worry, because CR has promised it won't take another 10 or 20 years.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Actually, a lot of people have preordered. I have and my son has. However, you should know the risk is all on you when you preorder. Some SC backers seem to assume there is no risk, that given enough time, CR will deliver on all their dreams, even if it takes another 10 or 20 years... but don't worry, because CR has promised it won't take another 10 or 20 years.
Actually this is another difference with CIG. With CP2077 you can actually request and get a refund for your pre order any time prior to the game being delivered. Any pre order customer unhappy with recent delays can do it if they so wished. And once the game is delivered the point is moot. On the other hand CIG game packages have not been easily refunded for a while now, if at all, in practice (other than the usual 30 days).
 
Last edited:
Actually this is another difference with CIG. With CP2077 you can actually request and get a refund for your pre order any time prior to the game being delivered. Any pre order customer unhappy with recent delays can do it if they so wished. And once the game is delivered the point is moot. On the other hand CIG game packages have not been easily refunded for a while now, if at all, in practice (other than the usual 30 days).

That's interesting and a rather nice move from CDPR
 
I do not think it is really a CDPR move but just a consequence of how consumer rights and regulations work in most countries.

Many countries, like the US, state you can force people into arbitration in case of disputes via the EULA, and of course, the arbiters are on the payroll of the publisher, meaning you don't stand a chance as a consumer.

However, that can backfire...

Was reading about an interesting case on reddit to do with this, and i think its referenced in this article.


Biascally the company had put in an arbitration clause, so some lawyers, on behalf of the clients, filed thousands of cases for arbitration. This would have cost the company millions of dollars.

Attempting to weasel out of it, the company's lawyers took it to court, and the judge slapped them down saying:

“Your law firm and all the defense law firms have tried for 30 years to keep plaintiffs out of court,” the judge told lawyers for Gibson Dunn late last year. “And so finally someone says, ‘OK, we’ll take you to arbitration,’ and suddenly it’s not in your interest anymore. Now you’re wiggling around, trying to find some way to squirm out of your agreement.”

“There is a lot of poetic justice here,” the judge added.

So, CIG might think they are fine, that nobody is really going to challenge them, but if mass dissassisfaction occurs among backers, they could find themselves in a similar situation with arbitrations.
 
So the new roadmap will be irrelevant the moment it is released. :D

Thats the plan, its worked before, the point is to distract backers and get them theory-crafting again to open their wallets.

seem to be thinking that selling software that actually WORKS is preferable to first dropping a hot, steaming turd into the laps of their customers, then harping at them to at the very least taste a spoonful, if not to push the entire affair into their mouths, while constantly trying to convince them it's the finest chocolate pudding...

That was a lovely mental image to go with my coffee, thank you :)

Many countries, like the US, state you can force people into arbitration in case of disputes via the EULA, and of course, the arbiters are on the payroll of the publisher, meaning you don't stand a chance as a consumer.

However, that can backfire...

Was reading about an interesting case on reddit to do with this, and i think its referenced in this article.


Biascally the company had put in an arbitration clause, so some lawyers, on behalf of the clients, filed thousands of cases for arbitration. This would have cost the company millions of dollars.

Attempting to weasel out of it, the company's lawyers took it to court, and the judge slapped them down saying:



So, CIG might think they are fine, that nobody is really going to challenge them, but if mass dissassisfaction occurs among backers, they could find themselves in a similar situation with arbitrations.

Thats one heck of a quote from that Judge. Sometimes the right people are in the right place at the right time. Our whole system depends on it after all.

Are you / the lawyers in that case, suggesting that the best form of action is not one class-action lawsuit but thousands of individual ones? Its a risky move as the group shows a pattern of law-breaking that adds together to prove not a one off. If individual cant refer to the other cases usually, even if settled and won in open court, not in UK anyway, each 'trial' has to be based on evidence for that trial, previous 'behaviour' and convictions are kept out as much as possible to avoid influencing the 'jury'. It doesnt happen in RL but thats what all the 'Objection' followed by 'I withdraw the question' is on about in TV dramas.

Id love to see thousands of people across 50 states and 3 countries file individual lawsuits though. Win 1 or 2 and the rest will be settled immediately :)
 
Star Citizen's favourite boogieman, Derek Smart, wrote about it here:

This is a developing story. In the meantime, below are some third-party comments and analysis about the filing from the Goon numbers guys.

Consolidated
This year they filed their consolidated accounts. This means that rather than being just that company, the set of accounts is consolidated to include all the subsidiaries. Any transactions between subsidiaries/parent are cancelled out.
Intellectual Property
The accounts preparation improves year on year as errors get picked up. I’ve pointed out the IP issue before and it’s now apparent what happened here.
On the 1st of July 2015 CIG UK paid £1,359,185 for Intellectual Property. This isn’t entirely clear but the suggestion would be that this was for the worldwide rights to Squadron 42. The sale of intangibles for £654,612 was the US rights of Squadron 42 being sold to Cloud Imperium Games Inc. Because of apparent errors in earlier sets of accounts we can’t be sure where that £1.36m actually went to, it could quite easily be to Chris Roberts himself, or a personal services company that is essentially himself.
Fixed Assets
These are actually broken down for the first time since they filed consolidated accounts. In the UK they’ve spent a little over £1m on computer equipment to December 2016. £400k on Fixtures and fittings. £300k improving the leased premises.

Goodwill
This is an accountancy term that represents the extra cash paid for an asset. If a company has a value of £34,851 and you pay £440,000 then in your company’s set of accounts this is recorded as an investment of £440,000. In your consolidated group accounts however, you include the activities of the subsidiary. Because of this, you do not include that investment of £440,000. You reverse it out through a set of journals which includes the value of the assets at £34,851 and the goodwill figure of £405,149. The goodwill is then amortised (written off) over, in this example, a five year period.
As you have no doubt guessed, these are the actual figures for Cloud Imperium Games Ltd’s purchase of Foundry 42 Ltd from Erin Roberts et al.


Nice one :)

Good old Uncle Derek, stealing some goon valour there no less.

This one on the limbo $2.4m (that could have fallen into anyone’s pockets) was fun too :)



Obviously it’s a presumption that the IP money went to Chris 'ideas man' Roberts, but it wouldn’t be a surprise if he’s $1.4m better off there.

Add in the share sales...

1.) FACT. 23rd May 2018, Indus Management Ltd and Erloch Ltd purchased $23m worth of shares in the company currently known as Cloud Imperium UK LTD. They purchase a total of 113,861 shares valuing them at $202 each.
2.) FACT. 23rd May 2018, unknown tax haven companies (but most probably same as above) purchased $23m worth of shares in the US parent of group of companies. Per press release.
3.) FACT. 23rd May 2018, Chris Roberts sells 14,598 shares in Cloud Imperium UK LTD to Infatrade Group Corporation. The value of these shares at this date is $202 each. This totals $2.95m.
4.) ASSUMPTION. 23rd May 2018, any other share movements on this day but for the US group are unknown and not disclosed anywhere. If the above were repeated for the US group, Chris would have pocketed another $2.95m
5.) FACT. September 2018, Roberts Family Trust purchases a property for some $4.7m. Forbes Article.


And that’s a definite $3m that’s walked his way (probably $6m if mirrored in the US companies, and rising to $7.4m if the IP cash went his way).

Oh to be the creator of a successful early alpha ;)
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Many countries, like the US, state you can force people into arbitration in case of disputes via the EULA, and of course, the arbiters are on the payroll of the publisher, meaning you don't stand a chance as a consumer.

However, that can backfire...

Was reading about an interesting case on reddit to do with this, and i think its referenced in this article.


Biascally the company had put in an arbitration clause, so some lawyers, on behalf of the clients, filed thousands of cases for arbitration. This would have cost the company millions of dollars.

Attempting to weasel out of it, the company's lawyers took it to court, and the judge slapped them down saying:



So, CIG might think they are fine, that nobody is really going to challenge them, but if mass dissassisfaction occurs among backers, they could find themselves in a similar situation with arbitrations.

If I have understood correctly, I was referring to EU Directive 2011/83/EU related to the right to a refund up to 14 days after reception of the online purchased goods. In the case of CP2077 the good has not even been delivered yet, so pre order customers at least in Europe are well within their rights to ask for a refund at any point before delivery and 14 days after.

I would imagine many states in the US have similar consumer right protection measures for online content. The case of CIG defies this basic principle because denying refunds implies either an understanding that the product has been somehow delivered, or that the product has been recognised as formally released in some kind of Early Access, such as the case of the Steam Early Access program.

Now I would imagine many backers would agree that the game has not been released yet. Also, I would expect many of those backers often criticizing incomplete and barebones early access programs (and that have often argued SC delays are ok so for the game to be released only "when it is done") would probably raise an eyebrow if CIG was to clarify to them that SC is in fact an incomplete and barebones Early Access released game. Although I suspect that is in essence one of the only ways for CIG to refuse refunds.
 
Last edited:
If I have understood correctly, I was referring to EU Directive 2011/83/EU related to the right to a refund up to 14 days after reception of the online purchased goods. In the case of CP2077 the good has not even been delivered yet, so pre order customers at least in Europe are well within their rights to ask for a refund at any point before delivery and 14 days after.

I would imagine many states in the US have similar consumer right protection measures for online content. The case of CIG defies this basic principle because denying refunds implies either an understanding that the product has been somehow delivered, or that the product has been recognised as formally released in some kind of Early Access, such as the case of the Steam Early Access program.

Now I would imagine many backers would agree that the game has not been released yet. On the other hand I would expect many of those backers often criticizing incomplete and barebones early access programs (and that have often argued SC delays are ok so for the game to be released only "when it is done") would probably raise an eyebrow if CIG was to clarify to them that SC is in fact an incomplete and barebones Early Access released game. Although that is one of the only ways for CIG to refuse refunds.
CIG has calimed before court that the product has been delivered and appeals have to go to arbitration due to ToS. The lawsuit was rejected because of that.
 
"Honest" game reviews. Is that still a thing?
Perhaps not in "big world" but at my home country there is one games magazine which is oldest of them, and as far as I know biggest of them. And since its establishment at start of 1990's they have been quite honest. No paid reviews and so on. What ever they have recommended as very good games I have found out truly being so. But well you'll have to be quite fluent with finnish to enjoy it :D
 
Perhaps not in "big world" but at my home country there is one games magazine which is oldest of them, and as far as I know biggest of them. And since its establishment at start of 1990's they have been quite honest. No paid reviews and so on. What ever they have recommended as very good games I have found out truly being so. But well you'll have to be quite fluent with finnish to enjoy it :D
Terve! Helvete! Mustamakkara! swearword Leikkiyä! Olut!
I've picked up the odd word from friends but I'm not sure it makes for much conversation.
 
Well product is then delivered and "its alpha" excuse is non-valid. I'd really want to see then honest game reviews and such :D
The product legally sold by CIG (if I don't make mistake) is a future released game (with no date of release given in contract) + an access to the alpha during development. For what I know, CIG respect the legal contract.

For the refund law in EU, it's 14 days but with exception on a lot of products https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/consumer-topics/online-shopping/14-days-to-withdraw/
The french page is more detailed (don't know why) https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu...hats-sur-internet/14-jours-pour-se-retracter/
exception N°10 : the supply of digital content not provided on a physical medium if the user had started to use it and has also acknowledged that he or she will thus lose his or her right of withdrawal, (e.g. downloads).
 
Thats one heck of a quote from that Judge. Sometimes the right people are in the right place at the right time. Our whole system depends on it after all.

The issue I see here is that like you said.....justice happening comes down to chance which means logically that an equal number of scams go unpunished or more considering how many people seem to actively work at fogging over others. Only a certain number of the totality is being caught and of those only a certain percentage is judged accordingly because many conmen, having hopped on the money train, try to use the system itself to keep the unjustly received money. As we all know even criminal cartells "lawyer up" to face and confront the system often operating in plain sight but protected by the very system thats trying to prevent them.

CIG entertains multiple shell companies overseas, has a personal lawyer on the team and access to more if needed. They also dont hesitate to overpower single backers finding the courage and the money to confront CIG in court. According to various articles the "intentional scam" is suggestively (that is...highlly probable/likely) going on for years now, supported and backed by more than just the few top tier CEOs. Whats probably true is that the kickstarter success was an immense surprise for Roberts which also explains their deidcation to keep this running. Star Citizen is a full ongoing life-award of money being poured down on the roberts clan, thats why all the key positions were claimed by family members or close friends from day 1!!!

Originally I was under the suspicion that Star Citizen turned into a scam at some point but had an honest beginning. For some time now I suspected that maybe there never was an honest beginning but it started out with the intend to scam instead. In hindsight more and more signs and information points to that very possibility. Which isnt any kind of comfort to the people still clinging on.


Id love to see thousands of people across 50 states and 3 countries file individual lawsuits though. Win 1 or 2 and the rest will be settled immediately :)

A nice fantasy :)

You know about the people consuming illegal substances anywhere on the planet? Or the people who subject themyselves to systemic exploitation (gambling)? These groups of people number into the millions in each country easily. They have the numbers to do what you suggest yet we never really hear about them. At best its an individual who, after some hard earned fight (and there have been movies about such examples) manages to wringe some consolation money from the abuser but usually these opponents part ways and continue doing what they did before....only with slightly re-arranged funds.SC backers (the ones still on the hope train to destination dreamcrafting.txt) are these groups of people. The chance for them to become organized or even willing to take a potentially fatal shot at CIG are slim to none. If at all such a move will come from one of the "haters" or disgruntled ex-backers who decides to "punish" CIG for perceived atrocities. A lot of organuzed scam operations coming out of russia or india are designed very similarly. Professional appearance with high effiort entertaining multiple "nodes" across the globe operated by hundreds if not thousands of people and they usually go for small amounts of money so even IF they go bust theres a high probability for the scammed to "suck up their losses" and not file a complaint/go to the police. Additionally these operate across intenrational borders so its even more difficult to see justice served. CIG walks a thin line in regards to "small amounts" which is true for the basic package and also heralded by the shills and enablers but can easily go into insane amounts that turn people possible walking away into enemies. I cant see any of the whales being in for multiple 10s of thousands to just "suck it up" and walk away without making waves. We ll probably see more of those in the future.

What I seee CIG doing these days is actively protecting their operation which includes all kinds of things. Manipulation, propaganda, paid third parties (streamers and shills), threats (questionable but possible), compartionalization (to prevent an employee from catching on and ratting them out - as Ben Perry stated himself, one hand within CIG doesnt really know what the other is doing) and more.

Looks to me like all established criminal organizations CIG started to feel entitled to your money at some point, dropping the shame and pretense to do gods work and went in fully for the money. Which means they are not going to run away when threatenrd to be exposed or when more and more people catch on figuering out what they are doing. If you cannot silence dissenters you opt to ignore them but either way you keep going as long as possible to get the very last possible penny out of this - pure greed.which we know has been many peoples downfall. Doing this assumes that CIG is legally covered or has plans in reserve to deal with a full outbreak. You dont stand and fight if you think you ll lose. Scammers are cowards in nature. They will run when exposed. Only the ones who have the means to protect their savings and consider it worth their while/think they have a good chance to resist stay and fight. CIG isnt running....so I m guessing this is planned from long hand and they do have an exit plan

I m hoping for justice in this case as well but I realize or at least entertain the high chance of CIG to go unpunished. A failure either way. Thats something we know for sure by now. Star Citizen turning into a success equals a miracle at this point. Suggesting "hidden dev builds" or "massive stocks of content saved for release" are akin to magic. Its a desperate fantasy to prevent awareness or awakening.

Innocent until proven guilty works legally in regards to incarceration but the reputation system works the other way around.

Bring up a hint of suspicion of guilt or wrongdoing and if ignored it ll fester into a cancer eating away your health and appearance. Most companies are scummy to a certain degree and even have to be to beat competition and stay alive but theres always the difference between necessity and overdoing it. So most companies who built up their operations over time and which plan to continue going care about their reputation. A LOT actually spending fortunes on publicity and consumer analysis. I ve never seen CIG doing any of this. In the beginning Chris Roberts barked a lot when treatened but ultimately whatever he brought up in defense (most of it counting on SCs early status) has toppled or has been proven wrong in hindsight. Yes there are shill articles and streamers but the brunt of SCs defense comes from the abused themselves. Clueless people (that is, having no more insight or information than the doubters) having an explanation or reason for everything, okaying everything in order to defend their chosen addiction, always rejecting and denying even simple facts in short....fighting CIGs fight for them. Unpaid, without being marionetted or directed.

People who decide to "pick up the banner and defend CIGs honour" or similar nonsense are the worst in this. Victims all the same but they are actively enabling a possible scam.

When suspicions of wrongdoing are brought up I personally deny it as well intially if its something I care about BUT (and thats the difference here...) I very much would like to see the accusations being denied or proven wrong. CIG has done that in the beginning, the problem is that all of their excuses or deflections have either never come to fruition or have been proven wrong in hindsight. History is important here. CIG...after some time realizing that they are only digging themselves iin deeper if they continue their defense switched over to the silent treatment ignoring outside attacks. And their enablers have made the switch with them. Harping on how CIG is "above" such trivial hate and envy when the reality is rather that it has become impossible to keep up the facade. So its okay to not receive proof for innocense. In Star Citizens case its even okay to "not receive anything at all" because you see...you are not entitled to anything for your money, it being a pledge and all. Often enough the claim itself (Star Citizen is a failure) isnt even disputed anymore but the details about it are (90 days....right?). Doesnt change the claim but it helps distraction and playing for time.

Theres been plenty of supicion raised about Star Citizen. And CIG the company itself is doing next to nothing to deny these suspicions anymore. Not with results at least. They act like the perpetrators hiding in plain sight holding their breath waiting for the moment the "gig is up" and they are equally shocked and even getting bold over how well this is working. Mostly because the clearer it becomes that something is wrong or not working properly the more deluded their enablers become in turn to allow them to keep going. CIG doesnt have a shred of responsebility towards the people carrying them, they ve shown that often enough. And "the pack" is an unforgiving deadly entity fighting itself if necessary.

When I make a post or point out the obvious I m not doing it to convince some of the enablers to "wake up" or make them admit they are wrong. The one constant in this show is the deluded who will find ways to disregard logic and facts and call YOU names over it. My effort and my time is based on these people but its not for them. Its rather for people looking in onto this muppet show. A warning to the world if you will that this project isnt worth the risk. And the enablers actually help me on this by providing the example of whats wrong. There are some who are smart about their approach but the broader group of enablers doesnt have the finesse or the skill. They rather act like the mob shouting, waving torches and pitchforks and trying to force dissenters into silence.

Equally when one of the enablers is making a post here its not to prove SCs innocense or to convince any of us doubters that we are wrong. Its also rather for all the people outside lookinng in. The intention doesnt need to be "getting more fish" but its certainly done to discredit doubt and transport a picture of success and stability, if not consciously then subconsciously.
 
Last edited:
The product legally sold by CIG (if I don't make mistake) is a future released game (with no date of release given in contract) + an access to the alpha during development. For what I know, CIG respect the legal contract.

For the refund law in EU, it's 14 days but with exception on a lot of products https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/consumer-topics/online-shopping/14-days-to-withdraw/
The french page is more detailed (don't know why) https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu...hats-sur-internet/14-jours-pour-se-retracter/

I'm pretty sure they did not sell an open ended promise. Or at least said so in court. That would be quite against their case.
 
Back
Top Bottom