I believe I can clarify this. We refunded Mr. Smart’s package because he was using Star Citizen as a platform to gain attention as part of a campaign to promote his ‘Line of Defense’ space game. Our ToS (or in this case, the Kickstarter ToS) allows us to refund troubled users who we would rather not have interacting with the community. The process lets us entirely disable their accounts, preventing them from playing the finished game. Think of it as the video game equivalent of a ‘we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone’ sign in a restaurant. We’ve used this ability a limited number of times in the past, always with the aim of improving the community (until today, the most famous example being our old friend jcrg99/Manzes/PonyMillar/he of many other alts.)
I do now want to stress that that is not to say you can get your money back by simply being as obnoxious as possible; we’re also able to ban accounts from the forums without requiring a refund. But sometimes we take a look at a user and decide that they’re so toxic or their intentions are so sinister that we simply don’t want them associated with Star Citizen.
As for refund requests working the other way: per the ToS, we’re not required to offer them. We do try and work with backers who are facing hardships, but the hard truth is that the money is by necessity being spent to develop a game rather than sitting unused somewhere (that being the significant difference with Steam; those refunds are taken out of their games’ profits rather than their development budgets.)
Flatline wrote on Jul 17, 2015, 16:03:
1. Taking DS at face value, this is easy. There is no proof/transparency from SC other than emails proclaiming all is well (until it isn't) so DS is relying on his real world experience designing a contemporary game and his experiences building games similar in scope with older hardware. Is it a plug for his software? Yeah probably but BFD.
2. In the lack of discussion of how the architecture of SC is going to work even on a fundamental level, we have no proof other than going by experience and looking at other technology. Lots and lots of people have talked about this at length, both in and out of the industry, and *nobody* can come up with an answer as to how this game will function as advertised. At this point a 5 with the Chairman on how the data structure of SC is going to work to pass trillions of items of data around, real time, with no delay, would go a long way to silence the technical critics. But they're silent on that. Very silent.
Legitimate technical questions have been raised. We haven't received any kind of an answer in return. So we're left to do what we can with what we have.
3. Oh FFS grow up. There's a shitload of people who aren't thrilled with SC. He even links to blog entries and shit. What do you want a directory with the names and email addresses of everyone who might share an opinion with DS?
Zandog wrote on Jul 17, 2015, 02:41:
Well, I've read both of Derek's blogs, and the following is my opinion:
1) What I find shocking is that this "internet warlord" who is trying to make himself sound objective, spends a lot of the time in his articles touting his own games. That level of narcissism really doesn't help whatever validity in their argument a person may have.
2) Derek admits his posts are full out his own opinions. That's his prerogative to do that. But the thing is, if one is going to make insinuations about wrong doing, you have to provide evidence. The "evidence" he has provided is circumstantial at best, twisting facts to suit one's own agenda at worst. I've heard this kind of weak argument before......from a well known Troll ("M") on here. And he couldn't provide any conclusive proof either. Just a lot of claims. He talks about how SC couldn't possibly succeed in being made. And yet, he offers absolutely no evidence to prove that it can't succeed. All he does is say that because HE couldn't succeed then CIG won't succeed either. That's hardly conclusive proof of anything other than the person making such a claim is full of arrogance and narrow mindedness.
3) Derek talks about "we" but doesn't actually state who those in his "we" crowd are. Now for someone who is calling for transparency, I find this kind of odd.
Quinn wrote on Jul 17, 2015, 09:27:dsmart wrote on Jul 17, 2015, 08:30:Zandog wrote on Jul 17, 2015, 02:41:
In short: Until Derek is FULLY transparent with his own arguments and WHO it is he is apparently workign with on this little crusade of his, then his articles amount to nothing more than conspiracy theories based on lots of opinion, and conjecture and nothing much else.
TL;DR but sorry, that's not how it works. When the media, bloggers etc write stories, nobody asks them to cite sources. Get real.
The fact is that, anyone who thinks that me, a public figure, would write stuff in public that I wasn't sure of, opening myself to legal (which is why I always run these articles through legal first) action, is a fool.
my latest article, Interstellar Justice, is now online.
I generally agree with you, but be careful with that TL;DR thing. Your articles take some long seconds to scroll through
dsmart wrote on Jul 17, 2015, 08:30:Zandog wrote on Jul 17, 2015, 02:41:
In short: Until Derek is FULLY transparent with his own arguments and WHO it is he is apparently workign with on this little crusade of his, then his articles amount to nothing more than conspiracy theories based on lots of opinion, and conjecture and nothing much else.
TL;DR but sorry, that's not how it works. When the media, bloggers etc write stories, nobody asks them to cite sources. Get real.
The fact is that, anyone who thinks that me, a public figure, would write stuff in public that I wasn't sure of, opening myself to legal (which is why I always run these articles through legal first) action, is a fool.
my latest article, Interstellar Justice, is now online.
Zandog wrote on Jul 17, 2015, 02:41:
In short: Until Derek is FULLY transparent with his own arguments and WHO it is he is apparently workign with on this little crusade of his, then his articles amount to nothing more than conspiracy theories based on lots of opinion, and conjecture and nothing much else.
Zandog wrote on Jul 17, 2015, 02:41:
Any regulars on Bluesnews care to comment?
LurkerLito wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 15:51:dsmart wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 15:21:Ha interesting, I didn't even notice that. Well I wish you luck in that pursuit.
And you just said it yourself. It was told to us, after the fact.
I am stuck regardless since I went direct to RSI with my pledge. But since I am only in like < $30 I don't much care as long as they deliver me Squadron 42. I am fairly certain they'll cobble that much together at a minimum and it was all I wanted in the first place.
dsmart wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 15:21:Ha interesting, I didn't even notice that. Well I wish you luck in that pursuit.
And you just said it yourself. It was told to us, after the fact.
Kxmode wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 15:45:
This discussion is still going?
(I understand the irony of my question)
LurkerLito wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 15:14:dsmart wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 14:43:That doesn't sound right, it was told to you that your pledges were linked to your RSI account in the email update on 11/30/2012.
No. That's not how it works. They are separate. I pledged on KS to a product. I never pledged, knowing that my product, would be tied to another entity (RSI).
It's all be through legal, so I know what I'm talking about.
That's why I indicated that, in the event of a catastrophic loss, only the KS backers ($2.1m) have any recourse to get money back, depending on how much - if anything - left, if/when this whole thing collapses.
From the email:Kickstarter Linking
We’ve had a lot of questions about the Kickstarter linking process. Everyone is wondering when their pledge will appear on the site. The answer is that it may take another two weeks: Kickstarter gives pledgers a grace period to confirm their payment before we’re allowed to send out the end-of-campaign survey collecting your information. Once that period is over, we will send out the survey through Kickstarter to collect the relevant information that will allow us to link the pledge to your account. Once we have that in hand, we will begin the process of linking your pledges to your RSI account, note due to the large volume of transactions and time allowed for people to complete the surveys this will not be an immediate process. For those who added money for Kickstarter add ons, you’ll be given a ‘credit’ at RSI which you will then be able to divide into the add ons you purchased on Kickstarter, including those no longer available like the Vanduul, M50, etc. Kickstarter users will automatically have access to the lower price add ons and extra tiers that those who registered for the RSI site before 11/26 have. Also note that the winners of the referral contest will be announced after the Kickstarter pledges are integrated; we can’t give away the big prize until everyone has had a chance to list their referrals!
dsmart wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 14:43:That doesn't sound right, it was told to you that your pledges were linked to your RSI account in the email update on 11/30/2012.
No. That's not how it works. They are separate. I pledged on KS to a product. I never pledged, knowing that my product, would be tied to another entity (RSI).
It's all be through legal, so I know what I'm talking about.
That's why I indicated that, in the event of a catastrophic loss, only the KS backers ($2.1m) have any recourse to get money back, depending on how much - if anything - left, if/when this whole thing collapses.
Kickstarter Linking
We’ve had a lot of questions about the Kickstarter linking process. Everyone is wondering when their pledge will appear on the site. The answer is that it may take another two weeks: Kickstarter gives pledgers a grace period to confirm their payment before we’re allowed to send out the end-of-campaign survey collecting your information. Once that period is over, we will send out the survey through Kickstarter to collect the relevant information that will allow us to link the pledge to your account. Once we have that in hand, we will begin the process of linking your pledges to your RSI account, note due to the large volume of transactions and time allowed for people to complete the surveys this will not be an immediate process. For those who added money for Kickstarter add ons, you’ll be given a ‘credit’ at RSI which you will then be able to divide into the add ons you purchased on Kickstarter, including those no longer available like the Vanduul, M50, etc. Kickstarter users will automatically have access to the lower price add ons and extra tiers that those who registered for the RSI site before 11/26 have. Also note that the winners of the referral contest will be announced after the Kickstarter pledges are integrated; we can’t give away the big prize until everyone has had a chance to list their referrals!
grudgebearer wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 11:20:It's not hypocrisy. My position is rather simple - if a company can afford to make a game like this then they should fund it themselves; if they cannot, and it would not be made any other way, then it is acceptable. That's no different to me saying that rich people should pay inheritance tax while poor people should be exempt.
How is that not the veritable definition of hypocrisy? You are giving CIG a pass for doing something that you would criticize EA or any other company for doing. Whether or not a company has resources or not, doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the practice of selling in-game assets for actually currency, before there is even a playable game to be had, is a terrible business model. It would be terrible for EA to do it, and it's terrible for CIG to do it, and the only reason you are defending it is because you are in love with the dream of Star Citizen, and you are willing to embrace hypocrisy in the hopes of seeing that dream fulfilled.
grudgebearer wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 11:20:You're talking shit. The game now is everything that was promised in the Kickstarter and more. I pledged at the beginning and consider the game to be completely in-line with that pitch. FPS combat was promised in the $3.5m and $5m stretch goals BEFORE the end of the Kickstarter - anyone not interested could have cancelled their pledge.
What was pitched in the kickstarter...is not what is being sold now. You can argue every way from Sunday, but people who pledged based off of Squadron 42, or the persistent space sim universe, are now getting a product that is completely different than what was presented during the pledge period. Don't give me that "Roberts was always going to make an FPS-world-space, because that's not what was sold to kickstarters. If Chris Robert's was in this for the passion, he'd have started this project with his own cash, and then presented a functional prototype, before he started asking everyone else to fund his pipe dream.
grudgebearer wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 11:20:Fucking hell, mate - we're not talking about the Holocaust here. We're talking about a bloody video game. Apply some god-damn perspective.
The term "necessary evil" is only used by people to justify terrible behavior.
LurkerLito wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 14:23:dsmart wrote on Jul 15, 2015, 14:39:
They refunded my pledge through both KS and RSI.
Fact is, the KS one, is straightforward.
The RSI one, is bullshit. They had no cause to terminate my account, thereby robbing me of my tangible goods (which I could use, trade, sell). I didn't violate their TOS, and even then, I got no warning.
I look forward to reading the next articles, but just FYI, your account was terminated most likely because it is tied to your KS pledge. Once they refunded you the KS money, they were well within their rights to terminate the account it was linked to since the backer rewards are tied to that pledge.
dsmart wrote on Jul 15, 2015, 14:39:
They refunded my pledge through both KS and RSI.
Fact is, the KS one, is straightforward.
The RSI one, is bullshit. They had no cause to terminate my account, thereby robbing me of my tangible goods (which I could use, trade, sell). I didn't violate their TOS, and even then, I got no warning.
Kxmode wrote on Jul 15, 2015, 01:29:
I initially backed for $40 with the Digital Mercenary with LTI package. I was perfectly content to have that be my entire financial commitment to Star Citizen. Then Chris started giving lots of interviews since the media was clambering to talk to him about his project's crowdfunding successes. Those interviews and videos were posted online. Like any fan who couldn't get enough Star Citizen and Chris Roberts I watched and read many of them. Through them all Chris really sold me on the future of his game with grand statements to the point where I started backing for much more than the original amount. I don't like to use the word "lie" however where its use is appropriate it is warranted. In this case Chris literally lied to gain more of my backer money.