Star Citizen Refunds Pledge

[sTizzl]

i would think that anyone who backs a product whether it be digital or physical, would understand that you will not be getting your money back, but this backer brings up an interesting point that the game is no longer what he originally purchased. personally i haven't kept up with star citizen that much so i can comment on what it promised vs what it is now, but i think this could set a dangerous precedent, almost guaranteed a lawsuit with similar circumstances will be raised in the future.

 

now take it a step further, could i return my 2nd gen ipad for a full refund because the iOS experience is no longer what i originally purchased now that after multiple IOS updates its running slower and slower on the bulkier platform? or how about an iphone 4 that doesnt even get updates anymore.

 

i know i know this may be apples and oranges, and on a side note i am not an apple fanboy, 1+1 daily driver.

 

Link:

 

http://gamerant.com/star-citizen-refund-crowdfund/

 

 

Quote

Any refunds with respect to Star Citizen are made on a discretionary basis. There was nothing special about this situation. The fact that this particular party used a complaint form that is online and openly available, doesn’t make this any different.

 

[qwertywarrior]

u raise some good points there

 

its taking a hella long time to get this game released

 

also " Star Citizen’s full release is expected sometime in 2016 "

my ass last time i checked only a small % was playable and its still alpha

[elfensky]

17 minutes ago, qwertywarrior said:

u raise some good points there

 

its taking a hella long time to get this game released

 

also " Star Citizen’s full release is expected sometime in 2016 "

my ass last time i checked only a small % was playable and its still alpha

To be fair, as far as I'm aware the actual original kickstarter goal, which was the single-player game ONLY, is slowly nearing completions and has a lot of features actually implemented. I feel a lot of people forget that the original game pitch and goal was the SINGLE PLAYER game, not the MMO every seems to be excited about.

What we have access to right now is the online module, that while also important, is to be completed AFTER the first single player chapter.

 

*insert shameless plug to use my referral code to create a SC account*

[qwertywarrior]

2 minutes ago, ElfenSky said:

To be fair, as far as I'm aware the actual original kickstarter goal, which was the single-player game ONLY, is slowly nearing completions and has a lot of features actually implemented. I feel a lot of people forget that the original game pitch and goal was the SINGLE PLAYER game, not the MMO every seems to be excited about.

 

What we have access to right now is the online module, that while also important, is to be completed AFTER the first single player chapter.

but didnt they have stretch goals in the kickstarter for an mmo ?

[Atmos]

Gotta have a summary of the article, and some quotes from the source that outline it.

 

Other than that, yes; it does set a dangerous precedent, and it most certainly brings up the possibility for future claims, hopefully making some of those programs a little more honest with how they go about their business.

[elfensky]

5 minutes ago, qwertywarrior said:

but didnt they have stretch goals in the kickstarter for an mmo ?

I'm looking at the page right now, but I don't see anything about an MMO there. I think if might have been a later website-goal. That, or I'm blind.

 

Edit: nevermind, I'm blind.

 

However, the campaign does explicitly say it's NOT an MMO, so I think the original campaign actually only included Squadron 42 (the single-player) with the persistence universe and the drop-in/out co-op, though I'm NOT sure. Can someone who's more into SC clarify?

[Misanthrope]

Nooo a kickstarter being basically a scam? This game being grossly overhyped? Who could have predicted that? (Other than me)

 

[thekeemo]

FUNDS RAISED
$117,361,531

Time 4 years

[qwertywarrior]

13 minutes ago, thekeemo said:

FUNDS RAISED
$117,361,531

Time 4 years

i would say its still worth it .

its gonna be a great game  .... a few years from now

[Humbug]

^^The technical challenges they have overcome so far do give me faith that based on the current direction they will get this game finished in impressive manner.

 

I just hope it will be fun to play as well.

[dizmo]

I think he's fully entitled to a refund. The game has been dragging on and on with no actual release. A friend of mine also pledged money, and he looked through some stuff and they stated the game would be released within 18 months (something to that affect, we were drinking during his rant).

 

7 minutes ago, ElfenSky said:

 

 

However, the campaign does explicitly say it's NOT an MMO, so I think the original campaign actually only included Squadron 42 (the single-player) with the persistence universe and the drop-in/out co-op, though I'm NOT sure. Can someone who's more into SC clarify?

I'm pretty sure the MMO style game was first, and the Squadron 42 was second. It was never supposed to be a spin off stand alone title.

[Hawx]

Alright, so, I closely follow the SC project, and this specific case has been talked about in a couple of community places. The user that got the refund in question did an AMA on a SC-drama related subreddit.

 

- The user gave $2500 to the project in 2014 and never downloaded the alpha. Since 2014 all he's done is watch the occasional youtube video

- The user hasn't enjoyed the focus on new ships in the past few months (as resources have been freed from SQ42 to allow for new ships to be released at a faster pace)

- The California Attorney General’s office just forwarded the complaint and had very little to do with the process

- He disagreed with the new ToS that disallows refunds unless within the 14 day purchase window or if there was complete project failure

- The old ToS was basically identical and still disallowed refunds past the 14 day window, as the money had been considered "used" for the development of the game.

- The user basically tried to get a refund for a 2 year old pledge on the basis of disagreeing with the new ToS when he already agreed to the previous one. CIG was well within their right to refuse it.

- The user treated backing the game as a pre-order instead a pledge and didn't bother reading the ToS in the first place.

 

 

CIG refunded him as they've done previously to public annoyances.

 

CIG currently employees over 300 people across 5 studios in 3 countries, and their staff includes veterans of Crytek, Blizzard, Activision, and the LEGO games to name a few. There's even a free flight event going on right now if you'd like to try the alpha for free. It's far from a "scam".

[Sakkura]

49 minutes ago, Hawx said:

Alright, so, I closely follow the SC project, and this specific case has been talked about in a couple of community places. The user that got the refund in question did an AMA on a SC-drama related subreddit.

 

- The user gave $2500 to the project in 2014 and never downloaded the alpha. Since 2014 all he's done is watch the occasional youtube video

- The user hasn't enjoyed the focus on new ships in the past few months (as resources have been freed from SQ42 to allow for new ships to be released at a faster pace)

- The California Attorney General’s office just forwarded the complaint and had very little to do with the process

- He disagreed with the new ToS that disallows refunds unless within the 14 day purchase window or if there was complete project failure

- The old ToS was basically identical and still disallowed refunds past the 14 day window, as the money had been considered "used" for the development of the game.

- The user basically tried to get a refund for a 2 year old pledge on the basis of disagreeing with the new ToS when he already agreed to the previous one. CIG was well within their right to refuse it.

- The user treated backing the game as a pre-order instead a pledge and didn't bother reading the ToS in the first place.

 

 

CIG refunded him as they've done previously to public annoyances.

 

CIG currently employees over 300 people across 5 studios in 3 countries, and their staff includes veterans of Crytek, Blizzard, Activision, and the LEGO games to name a few. There's even a free flight event going on right now if you'd like to try the alpha for free. It's far from a "scam".

That's a lot of misinformation. The old terms specifically promised a refund if the game wasn't available within a certain timeframe (18 months).

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-06-21-star-citizen-terms-of-service-update-makes-it-a-bit-harder-to-get-a-refund

[iiNNeX]

Tbh anyone that spends that amount of money on "backing" something that might not potentially come out or be as good as advertised deserves no refund lol

 

All I did was bought 2 ships which both cost me under £80 and I have been happily playing the alpha ever since it's initial release.

[c00face]

I just think it's funny I purchased my R9 290 Tri-X back in 2013, chose StarCitizen as one of my free games to come along my GPU. Still in the making then, still hasn't fully released yet. Hehehe.

[The_Strict_Nein]

1 hour ago, Atmos said:

Gotta have a summary of the article, and some quotes from the source that outline it.

 

Other than that, yes; it does set a dangerous precedent, and it most certainly brings up the possibility for future claims, hopefully making some of those programs a little more honest with how they go about their business.

 

I know you're talking about Kickstarter games in general, but if the 100s of video updates, 100s of community q&as, 100s of developer updates, and 100s of sneak previews/jump point runs does not prove the transparency of SC then I don't know what will convince people.

[The_Strict_Nein]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

I think he's fully entitled to a refund. The game has been dragging on and on with no actual release. A friend of mine also pledged money, and he looked through some stuff and they stated the game would be released within 18 months (something to that affect, we were drinking during his rant).

 

I'm pretty sure the MMO style game was first, and the Squadron 42 was second. It was never supposed to be a spin off stand alone title.

Incorrect, the single player was the point of the Kickstarter, with the PU being unlocked as a stretch goal to be delivered after SQ42's release.

[Sakkura]

17 minutes ago, The_Strict_Nein said:

I know you're talking about Kickstarter games in general, but if the 100s of video updates, 100s of community q&as, 100s of developer updates, and 100s of sneak previews/jump point runs does not prove the transparency of SC then I don't know what will convince people.

They do release a lot of videos, but what do they actually show? Like, this sort of video isn't exactly what I'd call convincing.

[Hawx]

43 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

That's a lot of misinformation. The old terms specifically promised a refund if the game wasn't available within a certain timeframe (18 months).

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-06-21-star-citizen-terms-of-service-update-makes-it-a-bit-harder-to-get-a-refund

Even eurogamer points out that this part of the ToS has existed since the start:

Quote

a separate part of the TOS talks about waiving your right to a refund if the money has already been spent on making the game - which it invariably has. "You agree that any Pledge amounts applied against the Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost shall be non-refundable regardless of whether or not RSI is able to complete and deliver the Game and/or the pledge items,"

After 2 years post-pledge that's more than applicable.

15 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

They do release a lot of videos, but what do they actually show? Like, this sort of video isn't exactly what I'd call convincing.

Instead of attempting to flame via that video (which is taken out of a livestream that contained quite a LOT of new content, ironically), you could look at the AtV Episode 100 special, which includes stuff like the Bengal carrier, Grimhex pirate base, and some of the new UI improvements:

etc

 

[Sparviero]

My only real peeve is that net code. There where some great netcode artists back in the day who could do amazing things with low bandwidth and physics loops hogging up resources and despite netcode being a priority it is still a fecal matter tempest. In my opinion only. 

 

For all the hype over these amazing people being brought on board I haven't seen CaiG use the way back machine to bring in this sort of industry vet. Although maybe all the old AW, Warbirds, aces high and wwiionline originals are retired.

[2FA]

>People think you can make a huge game in less than two years

>They fail to realize most AAA games take anywhere from 4-6 years with ESO taking 7.

 

I've put about $300 into SC and I'm not upset by the time it is taking to develop. CiG are giving us updates on the progress and have been the entire time. The amount of content in the Alpha right now is SOOOOOO much more than when they started it. Also, why would a dev show you everything in the game before even releasing it to be played. That seems like a terrible idea and would just ruin the experience of actually playing it.

[apm]

i wonder why people expected it to come out so soon.

a game like this will take years to complete.

 

you can just compare it to, lets say, gta 5, which rockstar worked how long on?

how did people expect a game like SC to come out within 2 years?

 

its blowing my mind how stupid some people are..

[elfensky]

13 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

>People think you can make a huge game in less than two years

>They fail to realize most AAA games take anywhere from 4-6 years with ESO taking 7.

 

I've put about $300 into SC and I'm not upset by the time it is taking to develop. CiG are giving us updates on the progress and have been the entire time. The amount of content in the Alpha right now is SOOOOOO much more than when they started it. Also, why would a dev show you everything in the game before even releasing it to be played. That seems like a terrible idea and would just ruin the experience of actually playing it.

 

Yup agreed. I study game-development, the amount of time it takes to get even a simple 2D game working is insane (though, to be fair, we have to code it in C++ and the Box2D engine, not easy to use stuff like Unity.) The fact that they have so much done already amazes me.

I have give or take poured about 300€ into the game as well, though that's where I put the line I'm not crossing (except maybe some hangar flair, but doubtful).

I have a racer, shooter and hauler with some miscellaneous items, which is imo enough. Maximum that I might do is that if some new cool ship comes about I'll melt the 3 I have right now and get the big one.

[Sparviero]

I want them to wait until 1080ti and fury whatevs are commonly available for Sq42.    Playing the dogfighting bits there is still a lot of polish left to be done. 

[The Benjamins]

36 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

>People think you can make a huge game in less than two years

>They fail to realize most AAA games take anywhere from 4-6 years with ESO taking 7.

 

I've put about $300 into SC and I'm not upset by the time it is taking to develop. CiG are giving us updates on the progress and have been the entire time. The amount of content in the Alpha right now is SOOOOOO much more than when they started it. Also, why would a dev show you everything in the game before even releasing it to be played. That seems like a terrible idea and would just ruin the experience of actually playing it.

Agree

 

GTA 5 was in development for 7 years and they had up to 1000 people working on it, and it took about a year to port/upgrade. for the scope of SC I can see it being as much or more work then GTA 5.

 

Also Any on that backs a project or uses kickstarter should realize they are investing NOT pre ordering. you have to be ok with ALL of your investment disappearing. people that trade on the stock market and lose cant get refunds.

 

I backed Project cars 4 years before it came out. I payed 60ish USD long before anyone knew what it was, and I was fine with how it turned out. It was cool seeing how it progressed. I also backed SC.

 

The biggest issue I see with SC is that it was hyped WAY WAY to early, were that didn't happen with Project Cars. But the shitty thing is hype helps bring in more funds.