Star Citizen Online - The search for more money

I have read up on it and have concluded that you are full of shit. When CGI loses its revenue stream and is put on trial for fraud let me know. Shilling got $75m in 2011 and bankrupted in 2012 but yeah pretend that the two are in similar circumstances.

You argue like priests and scientologists by expecting others to make your arguments for you yet you call others cultists. It makes for an interesting juxtaposition.

Neither company did that.

38 bought a single player game and put their lore into it.

Cloud Imperium games had the Persistent Universe planned from the kickstarter.

a_skeleton_03_sl said:

The point was taking a single player game and slapping an MMO on to it later is not simple. I didn't mention finances, you did.

Click to expand...

Seeing that 38 studios ran out of money before they could finish the MMO development, the two issues are not mutually exclusive dimwit. This game already has a functioning multiplayer prototype.

a_skeleton_03_sl said:

This is what I am referencing when I bring up 38 studios.

Click to expand...

What do you think people are pointing out the critical contrasts for, dimwit? You comparison is not lost on anyone.

a_skeleton_03_sl said:

This is what I am referencing when I bring up 38 studios.

Click to expand...

Theirplanmight have changed from, "...a single player space sim with partial multiplayer functionality to one single player space sim plus a space sim MMO," but they never started designing/coding it that way. It's been built from the beginning as a persistent MMO. Squadron 42 (the single player game) is being built alongside it. The MMO part isn't being slapped on.

Spoilered because massive picture. Basically dude forced a 3k refund from RSI/CIG after writing a complaint to the Attorney General of CA. He was also contacted by an LA County investigator who seems interesting in gathering as many complaints as they can to build a case against CIG. Hopefully CA bends them over for trying to deny refunds to unsatisfied consumers.

I love to mock this hopium dream as much as any grounded cynic, but frankly, I don't think these people are entitled to refunds. There is no conceivable way the crowdfunding model will work if the company, at any time, is vulnerable to essentially a bank run. I'd rather see adults held accountable for their actions: if someone on the internet convinces you to give them $ and they'll make something cool, and they fail to make something you think is cool, you aren't likely to get your $ back. Perhaps more importantly, I don't think you're entitled to itif a valid attempt was made to see the project through.

Regardless of SCO's ultimate fate, I don't think anyone would deny that they're trying.

Speniding 3k on imaginary ships then wanting a refund makes you a faggot. That post made me more sympathetic to Star Citizen.

I disagree to a point. This guy sounds like an OG kickstarter backer and not one of the late comers. If so then he signed on before all theadditionsstretch goals shot development time into the stratosphere. He would have also been subject to at least two rewrites of the TOS, both of which have attempted to limit refunds and take away consumer rights. I won't defend the stupidity of spending 3k on screenshots and promises but it should ALWAYS be your right as a consumer to get a refund if something is flawed with the product, in this case the constant changing of the TOS and moving of promised release dates.

I'll never be on the side of a large business, even if gaming, that uses the word "takebacks" in a business/legal letter to customers or the Attorney General's office.

Not to mention trying to play dumb and imply they can't refund something because oooh it looks like your exact payment has already been used. As if all the payments are sitting in envelopes and you're only able to refund the exact monies the person initially used. I've had several [very small] businesses try to pull that bullshit, and it's absurd such a large scale, multi-million dollar company is trying to pull the same. Who ever they had writing those correspondences made the company look like passive aggressive Feiggots. Oh, yeah, we'll refund you, but only because that customer isn't someone we want around anyhow! Bitch, please, you were trying to con a customer into dropping a refund request until you realized you were in the wrong, or at least losing, then threw a tantrum about it.

I tend to always lean toward the side of consumer protection, though, even when it's idiots spending way too much money on virtual things online. Never surprises me when fellow gamers are so anti-consumer, though, even when they are the consumer, since gamers have a unique tendency for self-hate. Fuckers will rally the pitchforked masses over the smallest injustices by a game company, then when it requires them to actually do something, sink their heads and make up some dumb analogy about the cost of going to a movie before shuffling back to their basements.

Skanda_sl said:

but it should ALWAYS be your right as a consumer to get a refund if something is flawed with the product, in this case the constant changing of the TOS and moving of promised release dates.

Click to expand...

No, you can't define the product as "the game the guy who spent $3k on pictures wanted." These people want a pipedream that isn't going to happen; 95 percent of them are going to be unsatisfied and wish for a refund. What about the backers who also end up unsatisfied, but they waited too long and between the companies good-will attempt to deliver depleting the cash reserves and panicked other backers, no more money remains?

I'd be fine with some strong, legal team vetted language put blatantly in the face of these foolish men saying something to the effect of: zero refunds will be processed for any reason. Let them decide if chasing their dream is worth it or ifplaying the role of a venture capitalist with no equity in the company is fucking stupid.