The Star Citizen Thread v 4

[Asp Explorer]

Transcript of a backer complaining.. Apologies for those who are DS sensitive!

I don't know wether to laugh or cry.

 

[Clawhammer]

I don't know wether to laugh or cry.

+ + +

Its on DS page, what do you expect?

 

[Asp Explorer]

+ + +

Its on DS page, what do you expect?

I expect to be entertained DS has done a better job of entertaining me with that page than anything I've ever got from Arena Commander

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

Comparing to what it is, on the smaller ships, the Starfarer is not that twitchy maneuverability i was used to on smaller ships.

At least that's what I played and what is my opinion of it. But I don't think you will get what you want, when CIG limited maneuverability with impact of mass, the general complaint is that the ships are not maneuverable enough, mass bro! To me improving needed is at least to make gradual speed increase based on mass/power whatever impacts it, like that takeoff is a good example.

Do you know how many seconds it takes a Starfarer to do a 180? Honestly curious here.

 

[MaxLexandre]

Oh wow

I expect to be entertained DS has done a better job of entertaining me with that page than anything I've ever got from Arena Commander

See, you don't need Star Citizen then, you have DS!

Do you know how many seconds it takes a Starfarer to do a 180? Honestly curious here.

Haven't paid attention to that, but currently it's decently fast still, i'll check it out

 

[Asp Explorer]

See, you don't need Star Citizen then, you have DS!

I'm sure he'll let me know when SC is released

 

[MaxLexandre]

I'm sure he'll let me know when SC is released

Far him goes, it already is

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

May 31 and CiG does need to release the financials as promised. Any one who says they don't need to the progress is easy to see needs to remember it was promised during the Kickstarter they would do so. it is not an issue of progress it is an issue of them keeping their word, and doing what they should now be legally obligated to do.

This. Also in their current ToS.

The rest of your post is trying to rationalize and pre-empt arguments, and I have omitted it from the quote, although well intended they should not be needed.

Releasing audited financials was an explicit committment by CIG. Probably about the only one.

 

[MaxLexandre]

Releasing audited financials was an explicit committment by CIG. Probably about the only one.

Not true, this is where the game of smoke and mirrors is played rewarding the TOS. Where does it imply that audited financials where to be released IF the game was un-released past the 12 then 18 months? Go read them, you'll see that what it implies is the REFUND POLICY on that term, and the audited financials depended on the actual ability to CIG to actually failing to deliver the game as a whole.


Arguing that they need to release financials based on TOS, is arguing that they already failed to deliver the game (really failed, not talking about delays), witch they can clearly refute as the game is still undergoing development, because you can only argue that release financials was a commitment that was dependent by the 12/18 months, but term mentions alone, the failure to deliver the game, and this comes from the TOS far back 2014. What they are obligated to on this, are the refunds.

 

[Stigbob]

Not true, this is where the game of smoke and mirrors is played rewarding the TOS. Where does it imply that audited financials where to be released IF the game was un-released past the 12 then 18 months? Go read them, you'll see that what it implies is the REFUND POLICY on that term, and the audited financials depended on the actual ability to CIG to actually failing to deliver the game as a whole.


Arguing that they need to release financials based on TOS, is arguing that they already failed to deliver the game (really failed, not talking about delays), witch they can clearly refute as the game is still undergoing development, because you can't argue that release financials was a commitment that was dependent by the 12/18 months, because of this.

They have already failed, they have proven time after time they don't keep to release dates, they don't keep promises to backers and they can't program a decent flight model.

In fairness they are really good at convincing people to buy the promises they never keep though.

 

[lysan]

They are going to spin this around as much as they can, its like "ALL HANDS TO THE PUMPS" situation.
And that is what made me so disappointed in CIG, all the lies, all the flip flopping just to get more money. But the situations is that they only make more and more people angry.

One day someone will make a kick started to get money, and take CIG to court LOL. (it was a joke mkay)

 

[MaxLexandre]

They have already failed, they have proven time after time they don't keep to release dates, they don't keep promises to backers and they can't program a decent flight model.

In fairness they are really good at convincing people to buy the promises they never keep though.

They have not failed, the moment Star Citizen fails, and you can "knock at their door" asking for an audit of financials, is the moment the development stops. It's there on the TOS, as any can read the most recent and older ones here: http://archive.is/1I8yc#selection-2389.164-2395.114


You could only bind them, to release financials before, if the term where they commit to one audit, was linked to the one where they also commit to refunds, firstly on 12 now on 18 Months past the Estimated Release Date, known as 2014.

 

[Asp Explorer]

You could only bind them, to release financials before, if the term where they commit to one audit, was linked to the one where they also commit to refunds, firstly on 12 now on 18 Months past the Estimated Release Date, known as 2014.

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have slightly different ideas

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

Not true, this is where the game of smoke and mirrors is played rewarding the TOS. Where does it imply that audited financials where to be released IF the game was un-released past the 12 then 18 months? Go read them, you'll see that what it implies is the REFUND POLICY on that term, and the audited financials depended on the actual ability to CIG to actually failing to deliver the game as a whole.


Arguing that they need to release financials based on TOS, is arguing that they already failed to deliver the game (really failed, not talking about delays), witch they can clearly refute as the game is still undergoing development, because you can only argue that release financials was a commitment that was dependent by the 12/18 months, but term mentions alone, the failure to deliver the game, and this comes from the TOS far back 2014. What they are obligated to on this, are the refunds.

The refund is waived in the ToS in lieu of a statement of audited financials, so that is a moot point.

The actual point is that "Delivering something" is not a concept that can be conceptualized in the vaccum of a timeless dimension I am afraid. "Delivery of anything" happens in a given moment in time. In this case CIG´s own represented deadline:

RSI agrees to use its good faith business efforts to deliver to you the pledge items and the Game on or before the estimated delivery date communicated to you on the Website.

...

Accordingly, you agree that any unearned portion of your Pledge shall not be refundable until and unless RSI has failed to deliver the relevant pledge items and/or the Game to you within eighteen (18) months after the estimated delivery date

And

In the unlikely event that RSI is not able to deliver the Game and/or the pledge items, RSI agrees to post an audited cost accounting on the Website to fully explain the use of the amounts paid for Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost.

As you can see even CIG´s own language is very clear linking delivery with a specific date and includes an 18 month grace period to it. Delivery means nothing without an actual date. And CIG understands that in its ToS.

Is there any other place in the ToS that you can find where it is described how to establish the moment in time when CIG can not deliver the Game? Seems to me there is not, estimated date plus 18 months is the only one.



But, fear not, not all is lost. The most obvious way that CIG has to circunvent this is to simply change the estimated delivery grace period (currently seating at 18 months), or the ToS itself, before the end of this month, which the ToS allows and they have done already in the past.

But this is not really about ToS I am afraid. Arguing ToS at a time where the very core of the game is questioned rigtht and left is petty and denotes a complete lack of confidence in the underlying product.

It is about trust.

 

[Stigbob]

They have not failed, the moment Star Citizen fails, and you can "knock at their door" asking for an audit of financials, is the moment the development stops. It's there on the TOS, as any can read the most recent and older ones here: http://archive.is/1I8yc#selection-2389.164-2395.114


You could only bind them, to release financials before, if the term where they commit to one audit, was linked to the one where they also commit to refunds, firstly on 12 now on 18 Months past the Estimated Release Date, known as 2014.

Paying fines because of missed deadlines for filing accounts with the government is not a good use of backers money.

It's also not a great indicator that the companies competently run or honest.

 

[MaxLexandre]

But let's spice things up shall we:

- The TOS refer, the Estimated Released Dates for, Star Citizen, direct commitment to refunds.

Let's go back to 2014, if who's around remember, the Estimated Delivery Date for Star Citizen was then, announced to 2016. So on 2014 they moved the Estimated Delivery Date to, 2016....

... Now that opens another door to argue, that, Backers that Backed Star Citizen (or even existing ones that bought anything after, would re-bind them) after they moved the Estimated Released Date to 2016, the 12/18 Months term would start After 2016, not 2014, for those backers!


Nobody thought about that? :|
Would a Backer of 2015/2016 being able to ask for a refund after May 31st, because the game didn't release on 2014?

As you cna see even CIG´s own language is very clear linking delivery with a specific date and includes an 18 month grace period to it. Delivery means nothing without an actual date. And CIG understands that in its ToS.
But this is not bout ToS really. Only

As i said, you can only argue that. You can argue that the failure to deliver is the game, is the failure to deliver the game on 12/18 months. CIG will argue that the failure to deliver the game, is the failure to release the game or pledge item as a whole, not delays. And it shall replay as a loop.

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

As i said, you can only argue that. You can argue that the failure to deliver is the game, is the failure to deliver the game on 12/18 months. CIG will argue that the failure to deliver the game, is the failure to release the game or pledge item as a whole, not delays. And it shall replay as a loop.

Is there any other place in the ToS that you can find where it is described how to establish the moment in time when CIG can not deliver the Game? Seems to me there is not, estimated date plus 18 months is the only one.

But as I said:

But this is not really about ToS I am afraid. Arguing ToS at a time where the very core of the game is questioned rigtht and left is petty and denotes a complete lack of confidence in the underlying product.

It is about trust.

 

[MaxLexandre]

Is there any other place in the ToS that you can find where it is described how to establish the moment in time when CIG can not deliver the Game? Seems to me there is not, estimated date plus 18 months is the only one.

But as I said:

Not officially, first it was 2014, on 2012 KS, then i don't think there was another one until 2014, where it was put SC was set to release on 2016, the only date today we see clearly advertised, was SQ42's 2016.

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

Not officially...

Indeed. The only description of a legally/commercially binding limit date to deliver the game is at the ToS. And that one expires end of this month, and hence why unless they change the ToS they should have to show audited financials then.

I am sure lawyers would have a field day with us and our understading of all this, but the more you pettily argue against it based on ToS the more you grow the lack of trust on CIG .

In the eyes of part of the community at least it is very simple actually. They promised financials if they failed to deliver. That date comes end of the month.

 

[VidarSnipes]

I would apply the Occam's Razor to this situation (correctly, I hope). Running out of 12/18 month period opens the refund window, and if Viajero's analysis is correct (and I don't have any reason to claim otherwise), requires the release of financials. Why would CIG change the length of this period, just before it runs out, if they can just claim the estimated release date is shifted to the 2377 AD and be absolved of any responsibility? Anyway, I see no reason why the new estimated release date would matter to Kickstarter backers, who pledged on the basis of information in KS campaign.