If you are European or Australien , then yes, but you will probably have to push for it a fair bit and point out, that by not giving you a refund, they are breaking local consumer protection laws. Their newest ToS is literally illegal in the EU, since they can't deny you a refund, despite them trying to get you to sign away basic consumer rights ( a thing you can't do under european law).
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
If you are European or Australien , then yes, but you will probably have to push for it a fair bit and point out, that by not giving you a refund, they are breaking local consumer protection laws. Their newest ToS is literally illegal in the EU, since they can't deny you a refund, despite them trying to get you to sign away basic consumer rights ( a thing you can't do under european law).
I know very well the software, I've been using it since forever, my point was, CIG should stop with these ridiculous claims or show us where they are at now.
My guess they are full of it, but then again I could be wrong.
Wait, you got what I said backwards. I´m saying that SC, as made by CIG, will likely cost upwards of 50% more than if it was made by a publisher.
They don't give refunds no matter under which ToS you signed up for.
This was my procedure of requesting a refund from them:
1. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...Star-Citizen-Thread-v-4?p=3988409#post3988409
2. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...izen-Thread-v-4/page654?p=3992114#post3992114
3. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...izen-Thread-v-4/page658?p=3995282#post3995282
4. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...izen-Thread-v-4/page658?p=3995407#post3995407
5. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...izen-Thread-v-4/page660?p=3997121#post3997121
Last edited:
I think its likely they´ll make it to 200 M. The latest ship sale brought in significantly more than I´d have expected it to. The Dragonfly is an overpriced LTI token yet it did gangbusters. I suspect next they´ll offer the much awaited Corvette. I also expect they will price it in the $450 to $500 range and not limit the number sold, claiming that its the combat focused equivalent of the $350 profession ships, naturally it costs more because of milspec. If they feel like really draining their backers they will also sell modules for the Polaris Corvette, like they did with the Endeavor. Under those circumstances I can see the Corvette All in on epack selling for $1000. All they need to do is show SOMETHING concrete to get people´s hype up again. People want to believe because they want the promised PU. The irony is that CIG is spending the bulk of resources on SQ42, while getting its funding based on hype for the PU.
I´m sorry, but I´ve not seen Sunset Boulevard. I´ve heard that name before though, kids these days right?
I don´t mind Mark Hamill. It was understood they would try to get him for SQ42. I expected all the actors from WC3 and WC4 to be brought back. Yes, even Ginger Lynn! What bothered me was all the new big name actors. With no slight intended to the likes of Gary Oldman, but why the heck was he brought in to SQ42? If his role is going to be a central one for all the SQ42 games it should´ve gone to Rhys Davies, Mark Hamill, or Malcolm Mcdowell. Speaking of the old cast... where´s Tom Wilson? If he doesn´t want to be in SQ42 that´s one thing, but I hear he wasn´t even asked? How can that be? With the exception of the returning cast from previous WC games, I expected the mocapping to be done by proffesional mocap actors and the voices provided by proffecional voice actors. Shoot, I´d have been perfectly happy with freddy prinze jr showing up representing the WC movie! He´s a great voice actor now to boot. But no, we have recognizable names doing mocap and lending their likeness. I ask why? Its said big names don´t even work to make movies successful, why did CR bring them to SQ42? Sorry for going off on this but this is an issue where I strongly disagree with the direction CIG is going.
dynamicbob
Banned
Im looking forward to their next version, it seems to be moving along nicley, the technical engine seems to have some creativity and dynamic nature behind it looking forward to it
You mean the squadron 42 movie starring sandi gardiner and some other less known actors? Hope they don't bring back pilgrims.
Oh dear I can't rep you anymore, however I'm wiping my screen as my morning coffee got sprayed on it when reading your post
Oh dear I can't rep you anymore, however I'm wiping my screen as my morning coffee got sprayed on it when reading your post
Doggone it! I was repping him for you, but me still can't. Too much rep as of late...
Tanker4444 said:
I know this is in the category "idle speculation and scepticism" but I have trouble believing the funding numbers on their website. Honestly if I was head of marketing, it's the first thing I'd fumble with, as making it seem like a lot of people are investing in something is the easiest way to convince others to "join in". Companies have been doing this since the dawn of time.
I'm not saying CIG definitely lies about these numbers, all I'm saying is that I'd be sceptical with regards to any numbers a company puts out without any available documentation or verification. (Or at least a disclaimer whether it concerns an audited or unaudited financial statement)
Honestly though, according to CIG approximately 300,000 unique citizens in total have played the PTU since its release in 2015, only clocking in 1,500,000 hours in total. That's a measly 5 hours per citizen over the course of 6 months, according to their own stats! At least if the contents of the released letter are actually true
. Yet I have to believe that a $35 ship sale rakes in $2,173,038 in a single month? That's over 50,000 units sold even if you assume that they earned 20% of that money from other sources (new citizens, other ships)...There's just so much information out there without any possibility for verification that I honestly think it's impossible to make any believable/accurate claims with regards to CIGs finances.
Edit: Before people start making claims, the (somewhat vague) fundraising numbers given on their website would amount to ~56 dollars spent per active PTU-playing citizen. While somewhat high with regards to their average playtime, it's not an entirely unrealistic number by any means (there's some really big spenders in the pool), so I have to stress again that I'm not saying their numbers are false, just that I wouldn't draw any conclusions from them untill knowing the numbers had been verified through a financial audit.
Last edited:
dayrth
Volunteer Moderator
Doggone it! I was repping him for you, but me still can't. Too much rep as of late...
Done it
Done it
Thanks!
I wonder on the funding numbers if someone melts a ship and gets another one, no cash spent, does CIG then report it as a 'sale' and up the counter by the ship price? If so no money changes hands but their funding jumps by that 'sale'. If so that would explain some of the numbers they report. Is it a lie oh sorry just an accounting issue so they can say so many people now OWN (read as bought with new money) that ship? So there we are one way to explain how you can sell 100 ships, then report (at $500 per ship) a $50,000 increase in funding, but total new money is 0. Isn't math wonderful at times.
.
Calebe
.
Calebe
Wait, wait, is this that "new math" or "Common Core Math" I keep hearing about? Or are we just talking Hollywood Accounting?
[video=youtube;fisi0gsKFQQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fisi0gsKFQQ[/video]
Planetary Landings using this tech would be phenomenal.
Planetary Landings using this tech would be phenomenal.
Last edited:
- Status