The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Gnorok]

Well, ok, yes. “Should” as in “is it the sensible thing to do, all things considered” would give that answer. I was thinking more of the “is it really right that they do this” sense (and “right” in more of a morality sense than a logical one).

I have to agree

 

[thorn-]

1) most of us don't get paid upfront for a game; promise to deliver by a date certain - then don't

It's my understanding that publishers often give a developer an Advance. If a developer were to accept an advance, and not deliver the game as promised by a certain date - would that be fraud and/or incompetence?

Obviously, SC is crowd-funded and not the result of a publisher's investment. Is this an "attempt to defraud" merely due to the type of funding involved? Or would you also describe the other publisher-advance situation I mentioned earlier as fraud?

2) most of us don't then use lies to show some semblance of progress because when someone has paid you for something, they expect you to deliver

When a developer, such as Chris Roberts, indicates that he believes a particular release (or feature, if you like) will appear by a particular date - is that always a lie? Or is it only a lie when the game is crowd-funded?

And that's why the authorities exist; and why State attorneys keep going after projects which pull this stunt.

Certainly states' attorneys file charges when consumer fraud is suspected, and they believe a case for such can be successfully made. That's Legal 101.

One can make the statement of "Murder is a crime. If and when Chris Roberts is arrested for murder, he better have a good lawyer". While that statement itself is true, it does not prove in any reasonable, normal, logical manner that Chris is a murderer.... despite the use of some interesting word order to imply it.

If you've any evidence that states' attorneys are pursuing legal action against CIG, I'm sure the community would be interested in seeing it.

 

[dsmart]

It's my understanding that publishers often give a developer an Advance. If a developer were to accept an advance, and not deliver the game as promised by a certain date - would that be fraud and/or incompetence?

No, that would be a "breach of contract". And the publisher can terminate the contract. And if they want to be litigious, can sue the dev.

Star Citizen has no publisher. Hence no such constraints. Which is why it's going to be up to the State and Fed officials, as they have been doing, to take action when it comes to that.

Of course nothing is stopping the whale backers from taking their own legal action if they see it fit. The ToS has been proven to not be worth the paper it's written on, and the recent Lily drone case by the CA State Attorney already set a precedent to work from.

 

[Gnorok]

...
Of course nothing is stopping the whale backers from taking their own legal action if they see it fit. The ToS has been proven to not be worth the paper it's written on, and the recent Lily drone case by the CA State Attorney already set a precedent to work from.

How is a faked drone video a precedent regarding SC?

 

[thorn-]

No, that would be a "breach of contract". And the publisher can terminate the contract. And if they want to be litigious, can sue the dev.

I'm aware that "breach of contract" and "fraud" are two distinct legal issues; however, fraud can be argued (successfully) whether a contract exists or not.

Setting aside the conditions for "fraud" for the moment - would you say that failure to meet contractual agreements in game development always = incompetence?

Which is why it's going to be up to the State and Fed officials, as they have been doing, to take action when it comes to that.

Perhaps you missed this in my previous post, due to my late edit - so I will include it here again:

Certainly states' attorneys file charges when consumer fraud is suspected, and they believe a case for such can be successfully made. That's Legal 101.

One can make the statement of "Murder is a crime. If and when Chris Roberts is arrested for murder, he better have a good lawyer". While that statement itself is true, it does not prove in any reasonable, normal, logical manner that Chris is a murderer.... despite the use of some interesting word order to imply it.

If you've any evidence that states' attorneys are pursuing legal action against CIG, I'm sure the community would be interested in seeing it.

 

[Marak]

It's my understanding that publishers often give a developer an Advance. If a developer were to accept an advance, and not deliver the game as promised by a certain date - would that be fraud and/or incompetence?

Publishers also know the financial statements of the companies they are funding, and where their money is going.

CIG promised (in the pledge) to treat backers as their publishers.

Anyone here seen their bank statements?

 

[dsmart]

How is a faked drone video a precedent regarding SC?

Are you serious? So you thought the State Attorney froze all their assets over a "fake video"? Did you actually READ what happened?

Man, you guys are a lot of work.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm aware that "breach of contract" and "fraud" are two distinct legal issues; however, fraud can be argued (successfully) whether a contract exists or not.

Setting aside the conditions for "fraud" for the moment - would you say that failure to meet contractual agreements in game development always = incompetence?



Perhaps you missed this in my previous post, due to my late edit - so I will include it here again:

Certainly states' attorneys file charges when consumer fraud is suspected, and they believe a case for such can be successfully made. That's Legal 101.

One can make the statement of "Murder is a crime. If and when Chris Roberts is arrested for murder, he better have a good lawyer". While that statement itself is true, it does not prove in any reasonable, normal, logical manner that Chris is a murderer.... despite the use of some interesting word order to imply it.

If you've any evidence that states' attorneys are pursuing legal action against CIG, I'm sure the community would be interested in seeing it.

You're completely clueless as to how the legal system actually works.

 

[thorn-]

Publishers also know the financial statements of the companies they are funding, and where their money is going.

It would be more accurate to say "Publishers believe they know the financial statements of the companies they are funding, and where their money is going."

Beyond this - the history of commercial games shows us that Publishers have lost money due to developer incompetence. Therefore, CIG's status as self-published really doesn't appear to be relevant to determining their competency. A developer can be completely clueless whether they are paying for the code out of their own pocket, or relying on a publisher, or even crowd-funding.

 

[Marak]

It would be more accurate to say "Publishers believe they know the financial statements of the companies they are funding, and where their money is going."

Ok - fair enough - But at least publishers are given the information on how the money is spent.

 

[thorn-]

Are you serious? So you thought the State Attorney froze all their assets over a "fake video"?

Gnorok did not state that CA did not have a valid case against the drone company. He asked how this creates a precedent regarding SC.

You're completely clueless as to how the legal system actually works.

I'm sure I've spent less time in courtrooms than some participants in this forum, but I'm far from clueless on how the legal system works. When I'm in doubt, I rely on the opinion of the person sitting on my sofa who has had a law degree for over 20 years.

However, I'm willing to listen - so, feel free to explain why you believe my statements (those that you quoted) indicate I'm "completely clueless" about the legal system. Please give sourced examples and/or court opinions, by the way. As neither you nor I am a licensed attorney, we'll need to agree to defer to professional opinions on this.

 

[Apoc]

I am excited. The game will be incredible. I had several of my mates buy packages this past week.

 

[thorn-]

Ok - fair enough - But at least publishers are given the information on how the money is spent.

Unless the developer is willingly committing fraud against the publisher, doing things such as hiding the true nature of expenses.

EDIT: Yes, as you stated - the publisher IS being given the info. Doesn't mean it's true info.

 

[Gnorok]

Are you serious? So you thought the State Attorney froze all their assets over a "fake video"? Did you actually READ what happened?

Man, you guys are a lot of work.
...

Yes I have read what happend. To spare other forum users some time here the relevant parts:

"Part of the suit has to do with the initial pitch video, watched by millions of people, showing off what appeared to be a Lily drone following users and shooting video. The drone responsible for all that fancy aerial work and video was not in fact a Lily, but a DJI Inspire, something the creators failed to mention."

and

"There’s also a slightly technical issue that forms a second front in the DA’s lawsuit: the fact that they went with an independent “pre-order” strategy rather than an established crowdfunded development site like Kickstarter. That makes Lily’s money qualify more on the side of internet sales than investment in an idea (something Kickstarter and its projects are always careful to explain), which exposed the company to certain consumer protection laws."

In my understanding the main points were a faked advertising video and it was not crowdfunded. So I have to ask again, how is this a precedent regarding star citizen?

 

[Tippis]

Ok - fair enough - But at least publishers are given the information on how the money is spent.

In fact, if anything, that just reinforces the point of the question: if development companies are as prone to fudging their spending as that correction would insinuate, why would CIG not release their statements? There's even less reason for them to withhold anything since they could just follow suit and fudge them too, after all.

All they're doing now is going back on one of the main promises of their funding campaign.

I am excited. The game will be incredible. I had several of my mates buy packages this past week.

Be a good friend and tell them to get a refund.

 

[Apoc]

In fact, if anything, that just reinforces the point of the question: if development companies are as prone to fudging their spending as that correction would insinuate, why would CIG not release their statements? There's even less reason for them to withhold anything since they could just follow suit and fudge them too, after all.



Be a good friend and tell them to get a refund.

Why would I do that? We are expecting to wait until at least the end of next year. No biggie...

 

[Tippis]

Why would I do that? We are expecting to wait until at least the end of next year. No biggie...

Mainly because that is not a realistic expectation and because there's no reason for them — or you — to buy in at this stage. So get the money back, and it's win-win: either the game comes out and you can buy it if it turns out to be worth your money, or it doesn't (or isn't) and you got a refund while there was still one to get.

Friends don't let friends pre-order.

 

[thorn-]

So I have to ask again, how is this a precedent regarding star citizen?

I'm interested in knowing this as well. Precedent has a far more narrow area of application in a court than - say, public opinion. Attorneys argue precedent on a regular basis, up and to including to SCOTUS. That doesn't mean that a judge or panel will agree that precedence applies.

One could successfully argue that the fact that Lily is:

a) a tech company
b) used a promotional video
c) sold pre-orders for a non-shipping product

is not similar enough to CIG to claim precedence.

Again - If Derek has evidence that states' attorneys are pursuing legal action against CIG, I'm sure the community would be interested in seeing it. But "I reported CIG to the AG" or "Lily was charged with fraud" is not evidence of any legal action against CIG whatsoever.

 

[Apoc]

Sorry, but opinions on forums providing 'guidance' have insignificant relevance.


I am happy to support the game and happy to wait for it, much in the same way I supported Elite.

 

[AJW]

Yes I have read what happend. To spare other forum users some time here the relevant parts:

"Part of the suit has to do with the initial pitch video, watched by millions of people, showing off what appeared to be a Lily drone following users and shooting video. The drone responsible for all that fancy aerial work and video was not in fact a Lily, but a DJI Inspire, something the creators failed to mention."

and

"There’s also a slightly technical issue that forms a second front in the DA’s lawsuit: the fact that they went with an independent “pre-order” strategy rather than an established crowdfunded development site like Kickstarter. That makes Lily’s money qualify more on the side of internet sales than investment in an idea (something Kickstarter and its projects are always careful to explain), which exposed the company to certain consumer protection laws."

In my understanding the main points were a faked advertising video and it was not crowdfunded. So I have to ask again, how is this a precedent regarding star citizen?

To get the obvious in before DS does, CIG are selling pre-orders. Their website shows pictures of spaceships, with price tags. That is what people are buying. You can't weasel-word out of consumer protection legislation by claiming that people are 'crowdfunding' a product rather than buying it. And CIG know this, which is why they are paying out refunds. If they didn't have to, they wouldn't. Not just because it costs them money, but because it looks bad for the project. They are paying out because the alternative is likely to be a whole lot worse.

 

[Tippis]

Sorry, but opinions on forums providing 'guidance' have insignificant relevance.

So why did you even bother if it was that irrelevant?

I am happy to support the game and happy to wait for it

Ok. You realise that you could do both of those without pre-ordering, right?