Everyone knows you need to install it on an SSDTried playing some Odyssey last night and it was a crash fest for me. Had to go back to SC because it was more stable.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
ok, so basically what he is saying is that the forum is not an official channel then?
Edit: I’m not trolling… I just find hard to understand how a developer would say something that is not aligned with what upper managemwnt said they want to do. Weren’t they doing meetings like once a week to discuss the game? I’m confused
Last edited:
You're assuming that anything in Star Citizen is viewed by them as an actual purchase of digital goods rather than a freely given 'donation' to aid the development of their product...as I'm constantly reminded by the faithful...despite having paid VAT on everything I've ever purchased from RSi/Ci¬G...or whichever one of the constantly shifting 17 shell companies is dealing with the transactions on a day to day basis.
If you are given something in return, for your "donation" like a digital ship with a specific fixed value that amounts to the size of your donation, its not a donation, not in the eyes of the law. its a purchase.
I cannot sell you a digital item, call it a donation in the small print, then take that item from you and keep the money, i would be arrested, probably for fraud, and the court will throw the book at me.
Ci¬G have already won a small claims law suit on exactly that basis...probably more than one, we'll never know. Once they shut the door on refunds in 2017, the constantly changing and evolving EULA...the latest one I posted a screenshot of a few pages back...will be yet another legal loophole butt-covering maneuver. Ci¬G are protecting their bases every step of the way...after all, they've now got investors on board who have sunk a few bob into Chris Roberts' online marketing venture... who'll also be making sure they're not going to lose it all to some random muppet with some Legal Aid lawyer petitioning a small claims court because they're annoyed at losing a pixel spaceship or two
Last edited:
Ci¬G have already won a small claims law suit on exactly that basis...probably more, we'll never know. Once they shut the door on refunds in 2017, the constantly changing and evolving EULA...the latest one I posted a screenshot of a few pages back...will be yet another legal butt-covering maneuver. Ci¬G are protecting their bases every step of the way...after all, they've now got investors who have sunk a few bob into their online marketing venture who'll also be making sure they're not going to lose it all to some random muppet with some Legal Aid lawyer petitioning a small claims court because they're annoyed at losing a pixel spaceship or two
If you buy a game from Steam you have 14 days and 2 hours of gameplay to claim a refund, Steam would have to accept because its law, its the right to change your mind set in law.
If you buy a Graphics Card, a CPU, a TV..... you can send it back within 14 days and claim a refund, by law you are entitled to get your money back, as long as its with in that 14 day period.
After than you no longer have the right to refund, after that its at the sellers discretion. if you want a refund for a ship 16 days after you bought it, the law is on CIGs side.
As a complete legal ignoramus, let me chime in on legal matters:
- In the EU, these are sales of digital goods and services. Also in the UK, where all turnover from non-US markets goes to.
- EULAs are not law, if they are contradicting established regulation, they are (partially) void. In the EU.
- They are not "crowdfunded" because crowdfunding needs to be done through registered crowdfunding platforms. In the EU. UK was still in the EU not long ago.
- We will never know for real until someone tests it in court. Because no matter whether what CIG are doing is correct or incorrect legally, until they tax it properly and until nobody bothers to open a serious case against them, nobody will care. In the EU.
Can you cite a law that covers that ? Because if their TOS / EULA say you can it's game over for you. It's not a gambling situation. It's a kind of subscription model, and they can do pretty much whatever they want with it as long as people are throwing money at them knowing all of this.
As for refunds they have weaseled their way out of it entirely too, declaring "it's a released product."
At least, the refund part was tested in court. CiG can and have refused refunds.
That's all fine...but Ci¬G have consistently dodged the majority of any legal requirements set out in their constantly changing EULA and TOS...from requiring users of their software to click on a legally dubious disclaimer stating that the user is aware that Ci¬G, as a company (group of companies) have absolutely zero responsibility to supply any or all of the promised software or goods and that all transactions between you as a customer and them as a company (group of companies) aren't legally binding as a 'sale' of digital goods in any way.
Read the small print, I did. Out of interest, I showed the EULA and TOS to my long suffering accountant/Consiglieri and asked him if it was legal and above board. His simple answer, "It is now that you've clicked on and accepted it....and by the way, I have a bridge I want to sell you."
Last edited:
Sandro Sammarco anyone???
That kind of thing happens. Whether it’s because of miscommunication, misunderstanding, misinformation, changing plans, or just plain old speaking off the cuff... designers, even lead designers, can say things that never materialize in the game.
Common sense, i know what i can get away with legally and what i can't, you don't have to understand the law to know what will make one fall foul of it.
Can you cite where in the EULA / TOS it states they can take your real money from you? I haven't seen that.
They've already taken it...it's what Ci¬G are actually doing or planning to do with it that gets slightly less than clear
Last edited:
"It's a pledge".
Also common sense is not the law.
If there isn't in some form or another $350 credit in my account when and after this goes live i will physically drag Chris Roberts in front of a magistrates my self, and there will be one hell of a queue behind me.They've already taken it...it's what they're actually doing or planning to do with it that gets slightly less than clear
I have a digital product that i would like to give you for a fixed donation of $300, retrospectively i'm going to write a TOS which states if you pay me $10 a month i'll let you keep it, if you don't, i'll take it from you.
What does your common sense say about that?
As a general rule of thumb, the law is absolutely contrary to common sense
My common and more than likely slightly outraged standpoint would insist that Ci¬G withdrew it or honoured my 'pledge' in an appropriate manner...but as long as I've clicked on any disclaimer Ci¬G offered for me to accept... especially when it's conveniently blocking the game launcher like yesterday's rewrite of the EULA/TOS, that sense of personal outrage doesn't really come into it. If I sign or accept the agreement...whatever it may be, my hands are effectively tied. If I don't sign or accept it, I won't be playing Star citizen
Last edited:
Here you start off wrong. "give" is not the correct term. "rent" maybe ? "give access to the pre-alpha" would also be more complete.. and again I'm not a lawyer, and the TOS are full of traps that are much more vicious. (edit) moreover there are plenty of mentions that virtual items and even virtual money that are sold through their store are still the complete property of CiG and they can do whatever they want with them. They definitely do not "give" them to you.
If one day (I hope for you it doesnt happen but who knows) you have to defend yourself in a court of justice: DO NOT USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. Hire a lawyer. Really.
Last edited:
CIG "won" the small claims court case against the firefly guy because the EULA mandates arbitration, not a court case.
And they didnt really "win", court said it was the wrong venue for the claim. firefly never followed up with an arbitration claim.
I didn't follow it...just forum gossip and hearsay from my perspective. Rich and fiscally irresponsible muppet has a tantrum then takes Ci¬G to court for 'reasons', loses court case then goes buying more ships anyway
You couldn't make that stuff up
Last edited:
I'd have to say yes and no on that one. If when you first paid into the game, there was no specific statement on what happened to your digital goods except that they were yours, and then several updates later there's a new EULA that says "we don't owe you anything, and everything you gave us is now a donation retroactively," if you don't click accept, you essentially forfeit your money anyway because you either don't play the game as a result, or you click accept so you can play the game and lose your digital goods anyway. So you might as well take it in front of a legal representative since they'll have strong armed you into giving them money for nothing.My common and more than likely slightly outraged standpoint would insist that Ci¬G withdrew it or honoured my 'pledge' in an appropriate manner...but as long as I've clicked on any disclaimer Ci¬G offered for me to accept... especially when it's conveniently blocking the game launcher like yesterday's rewrite of the EULA/TOS, that sense of personal outrage doesn't really come into it. If I sign or accept the agreement...whatever it may be, my hands are effectively tied. If I don't sign or accept it, I won't be playing Star citizen