I guess what I am getting at is, will it be more enjoyable to watch the sheer magnitude of such a failure than it would be to play the actual game?
As someone who enjoys games? No, I'd rather play the promised game if they can actually deliver it.
As a gamer who watches trends in game development? Yes, because I have been horrified by how SC has upped the financial ante for participation in a game with their ridiculously priced ships and strong-arm concepts such as "lifetime insurance" or, more precisely, the lack thereof unless you buy by a certain date, etc.
I want those ideas and concepts to fail badly so we can get back to the idea that you make a game and then I pay you x$ if I want to play it and not much more after that except perhaps an amount in the neighborhood of $180 / year if I want to keep playing it.
I'm not comfortable in the first place with tying game play elements in any game to $ because it always undermines the idea of one same game for all of us. Even if the amount we need to spend to enjoy the full game experience is $180 per year or less, the dynamics of player participation in the same game are always thrown out of whack when features are sold piecemeal.
So that's just my personal bias and disposition against any form of F2P.
But F2P games are not all the same. Some are more transparent and honest in their costs than others. Some use the RNG of loot boxes or crafting success to sleazily extract much larger amounts of money from the obsessed. And to me it's not enough to stay away from that and chuckle at those who don't... I want to see the ones who benefit from the weakness of those other gamers who are more gullible (or addicted) punished for taking advantage of them.
Star Citizen's repulsive sale of ships for astronomical amounts, never before seen in space sims, is to me one of the worst examples of wealthy Hollywood types taking advantage of people to the tune of $90 Million+. They do it while using their PR machine to make "citizens" feel like they are part of something truly special with actresses giving inane speeches complete with manufactured water works about the incredible nobility of their participation. Those quasi-religious overtones just make the whole spectacle that much more sickening.
So yes, I would want to see them fail badly because it is something very fucked up that they're doing.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
No of course not,i always want a game to succeed IF and a really BIG IF it is a good quality game.
None the less,i still cannot accept the way they run their business,that is i think one guy's mistake/problem and that is Chris.
However i would love to see hundreds of great quality games,i would be lost in choices but as is ,this is just not happening.I have a VERY strong gut feeling this game will not be up to par but simply a superficial game similar to Eve.That is just my gut feeling on what i have seen so far,doesn't make it official i can have a reall ygood gut feeling if i see something that warrants it.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Think where getting derailed here a bit, as all this won't effect SC since 98% funds where done via their own site and if a customer isn't happy they can get a full refund. SC would have to deny refunds before it becomes a problem tbh
It is my OPINION that crowding is a very bad idea simply because: a) you are asking consumers who have no knowledge of how to evaluate business plans, technology risks, and what is and is-not reasonable time table (of software dev) to make investment decisions, and b) they don't even get the upside if their investment works out.
I would much rather savvy investors are involved instead.
Plus, because of (1) ... devs have incentives to fool consumes, if not defrauding them blatantly, unless there is some accountability at the end.
It is my OPINION that crowding is a very bad idea simply because: a) you are asking consumers who have no knowledge of how to evaluate business plans, technology risks, and what is and is-not reasonable time table (of software dev) to make investment decisions, and b) they don't even get the upside if their investment works out.
I would much rather savvy investors are involved instead.
Plus, because of (1) ... devs have incentives to fool consumes, if not defrauding them blatantly, unless there is some accountability at the end.
But crowdfunding allows games to be the made in the way developers want to make them regardless of how proven the concept is. Investors typically don't back projects if there is too great a risk of failure. There are downsides to crowdfunding, but those downsides are dwarfed by the potential for innovation. If you're happy to play WoW clones forever then okay but not everyone is and thankfully for them we have crowdfunding.
Essentially I see crowd-funding as one person profiting off another person's goodwill, and that has never sat well with me.
It is my OPINION that crowding is a very bad idea simply because: a) you are asking consumers who have no knowledge of how to evaluate business plans, technology risks, and what is and is-not reasonable time table (of software dev) to make investment decisions, and b) they don't even get the upside if their investment works out.
I would much rather savvy investors are involved instead.
Plus, because of (1) ... devs have incentives to fool consumes, if not defrauding them blatantly, unless there is some accountability at the end.
But crowdfunding allows games to be the made in the way developers want to make them regardless of how proven the concept is. Investors typically don't back projects if there is too great a risk of failure. There are downsides to crowdfunding, but those downsides are dwarfed by the potential for innovation. If you're happy to play WoW clones forever then okay but not everyone is and thankfully for them we have crowdfunding.
That is the myth that encourages donations. For every crowdfunded indie project there are hundreds of other indie development teams that don't use crowdfunding. They just put their work and sweat where their mouth is and go about building their dream game typically working for free on a profit sharing system.
Crowdfunding is used by those who don't want to take a personal risk -- they want you to take the risk for them.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
It is my OPINION that crowding is a very bad idea simply because: a) you are asking consumers who have no knowledge of how to evaluate business plans, technology risks, and what is and is-not reasonable time table (of software dev) to make investment decisions, and b) they don't even get the upside if their investment works out.
I would much rather savvy investors are involved instead.
Plus, because of (1) ... devs have incentives to fool consumes, if not defrauding them blatantly, unless there is some accountability at the end.
But crowdfunding allows games to be the made in the way developers want to make them regardless of how proven the concept is. Investors typically don't back projects if there is too great a risk of failure. There are downsides to crowdfunding, but those downsides are dwarfed by the potential for innovation. If you're happy to play WoW clones forever then okay but not everyone is and thankfully for them we have crowdfunding.
That is the myth that encourages donations. For every crowdfunded indie project there are hundreds of other indie development teams that don't use crowdfunding. They just put their work and sweat where their mouth is and go about building their dream game typically working for free on a profit sharing system.
Crowdfunding is used by those who don't want to take a personal risk -- they want you to take the risk for them.
It's not a myth, it's a perspective. I don't think some games are possible without outside investment, whether it comes from crowdfunding or not. As to the defered risk, yes that's the ugly side of crowdfunding I suppose. If the project fails you get nothing for your pledge.
If it's a perspective, it's a dishonest one designed to over-simplify why they want your money by alluding to the widely-held gamer belief that private investors are evil money-grubbers with no gaming taste who routinely reject fantastic ideas and pervert the ones they do get involved in.
Like any good deception, there is enough truth in that to be credible at first glance.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I'll probably never play the game. So yes, yes in some sick way it would bring more entertainment watching the product shut down in real time.
SC could be the Atari E.T. of the new millennium. The industry rose from the ashes of the bad game 80's better than could have been imagined. Are we now in the scam game 10's?
I'll probably never play the game. So yes, yes in some sick way it would bring more entertainment watching the product shut down in real time.
SC could be the Atari E.T. of the new millennium. The industry rose from the ashes of the bad game 80's better than could have been imagined. Are we now in the scam game 10's?
I think we're in exactly the same position as '83; a glut of over-sold, over-hyped or poor quality games that will adversely effect consumer confidence. The result won't be industry wide, but the likes of early access and crowd-funding will be hit first.
If it's a perspective, it's a dishonest one designed to over-simplify why they want your money by alluding to the widely-held gamer belief that private investors are evil money-grubbers with no gaming taste who routinely reject fantastic ideas and pervert the ones they do get involved in.
Like any good deception, there is enough truth in that to be credible at first glance.
That's more an issue with publishers, who often do step in on the creative side of things. I've rarely if ever heard anyone really refer to investors in that way though. I really do not think it's dishonest to say many publishers aren't interested in certain types of projects.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If it's a perspective, it's a dishonest one designed to over-simplify why they want your money by alluding to the widely-held gamer belief that private investors are evil money-grubbers with no gaming taste who routinely reject fantastic ideas and pervert the ones they do get involved in.
Like any good deception, there is enough truth in that to be credible at first glance.
That's more an issue with publishers, who often do step in on the creative side of things. I've rarely if ever heard anyone really refer to investors in that way though. I really do not think it's dishonest to say many publishers aren't interested in certain types of projects.
At the very least, it's overstated in order to justify crowdfunding requests. The greater dishonesty is to go from that - the statement that they can't do it with a publisher, straight to crowdfunding without self-funding even when the developers are very well off.
It's the either or part that is a dishonest pitch. "Can't get it done through the normal channels, therefore I must crowdfund."
I'm not talking in the abstract either. My son is part of an indie development team that does not use crowdfunding. He worked for a couple of years while doing his masters based on 10% of expected profits.
In his case, the game sold well and his 10% turned into the equivalent of very good retro wages. But it could have gone the other way and he could have seen very little return for his efforts. And he's not unique. This is the way most indie game developers work - at least with their first game.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
You know what scares me is the fact that I feel like Star Citizen is underfunded. I do feel like 90 million dollars is a lot of money but I don't think it's enough to come close to what they are promising.
Take this into account. World of Warcrafts budget was much higher than what CIG has currently. They also spent around 200 million. That was years ago and inflation has taken its toll.
If you're spending 200 million on a theme park MMO with cartoony graphics and linear progression I doubt 90 million will scratch the surface of "IRL Space Simulator with Ultimate Graphics and Entire Star Systems "
I can't see any benefit to SC failing. I'm sure everyone who has put money into it would be quite upset if it all comes to nothing, I know I would be.
Regardless, if SC did fail it wouldn't really matter too much if any kind of legislation was put in place to protect future contributors or not. What is far more important is public perception of crowdfunding. If we lose confidence in crowdfunding as an option for games development then it dies, it won't matter what legislation is in place.
Crowdfunding can only succeed as a viable option for games developers if those games succeed in being made and don't turn out to be utter shite. Public perception and confidence in crowdfunding is far more important than any form of legislation.
SC failing would be a huge kick in the teeth for crowdfunded games development.
Just out of curiosity how many pictures of spaceships did you buy?
None, I have no money invested in SC at all. I'm completely neutral in this. Perhaps my initial statement should have read "I know I would be if I had put money into it, which I haven't". Sorry if that caused any confusion.
It is my OPINION that crowding is a very bad idea simply because: a) you are asking consumers who have no knowledge of how to evaluate business plans, technology risks, and what is and is-not reasonable time table (of software dev) to make investment decisions, and b) they don't even get the upside if their investment works out.
I would much rather savvy investors are involved instead.
Plus, because of (1) ... devs have incentives to fool consumes, if not defrauding them blatantly, unless there is some accountability at the end.
But crowdfunding allows games to be the made in the way developers want to make them regardless of how proven the concept is. Investors typically don't back projects if there is too great a risk of failure. There are downsides to crowdfunding, but those downsides are dwarfed by the potential for innovation. If you're happy to play WoW clones forever then okay but not everyone is and thankfully for them we have crowdfunding.
"The way devs want to make them"? For devs with no track record, and little know-how .... no i don't think that is a good idea. You are confusing "innovation" with "poor thought out new ideas".
If devs cannot convince any investor to back them, it is dangerous to let them loose on consumers who cannot judge if the amount of money they asked for is enough for the project, if the technology is ready for the game, if the devs can in fact make it.
You cannot play "potential" .. that is the most dangerous word to lure people into giving up their money.
Just look at all the indie devs who don't need KS money. Investor routinely backed great risks. Heck, ANY new start-up is a great risk. The difference is that they can at least filter out the con man or the amateur who do not even have a decent plan. Can you do that?
I think we're in exactly the same position as '83; a glut of over-sold, over-hyped or poor quality games that will adversely effect consumer confidence. The result won't be industry wide, but the likes of early access and crowd-funding will be hit first.
It would not a bad thing if crowd-funding got hit. While i don't mind others flushing their money down the toilet for pipe dreams (after all it is not my money), it would be fun to see how they face these train wrecks, cognitive dissonance and all that.
OTOH, i doubt early access will be harmed. Personally i don't pay into early access (because that is not a finished product) .... but the consumer is getting something in return for that money ... and the state of the product is pretty clear ... so i don't think there is a problem. If someone goes in with open eyes about a product (instead of a promise that may not materialize), i don't see a problem.
Well on the whole Star Citizen controversy, if Roberts would of just stuck with his original idea he would of had the money plus for it. But then he seen all the cash coming in and started making promises that a lot of developers working for him said was impossible to do. The sad part with people like the main Cry Engine dev Dan Tracy leaving (which is huge) does not look good for SC being made. With that said I think what may really piss off people is how much cash Roberts may actually walk away with in profit. That is if we ever find that out. Either way it will be a huge blow to crowd funding.
i think it will probably release and just not live up to expectations
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
With that said I think what may really piss off people is how much cash Roberts may actually walk away with in profit. That is if we ever find that out. Either way it will be a huge blow to crowd funding.
If indeed he walks away with a lot of cash (which i do not know if that is true or not), i hope the FTC, or CA state will get involved .. and if so, we will know how much he "embezzled".
Well on the whole Star Citizen controversy, if Roberts would of just stuck with his original idea he would of had the money plus for it. But then he seen all the cash coming in and started making promises that a lot of developers working for him said was impossible to do. The sad part with people like the main Cry Engine dev Dan Tracy leaving (which is huge) does not look good for SC being made. With that said I think what may really piss off people is how much cash Roberts may actually walk away with in profit. That is if we ever find that out. Either way it will be a huge blow to crowd funding.
It should be noted that all your complaints about "the impossible" are reasons why people backed this game. It's the people backing the project who took it to the next level, who increased the scope of the project. Granted, it kind of screwed the original KS backers, but they were also given the opportunity to get a refund.
Secondly, Chris Roberts is not going to walk away with anything. First of all, you're assuming that the SC community would ALLOW him to walk away. In reality there would likely be a class action suit or suits filed. He's got 1 million people that he'd be pissing off. Secondly, unless he walks away in the next 6 months, he will likely have nothing left to walk away with. The current per/employee cost, per year at CIG, based on an average salary of $75,000 (which I believe was quoted somewhere but can't find it) and a labour burden of 50% (which is reasonable) is $112,500 annually. That comes out to over $28 million annually based on CIGs current 250 person staff. Someone had some other numbers kicking around for employee counts, etc., but I believe it was something like 180 the previous year and 90 the year before that.So there's probably been around $56 million in burn already, plus, plus, I think there's probably not any more than $25 million to $30 million in the bank, and I think that's being pretty generous. Either way, he's not walking away with much. Especially when he's already proven he can make $100 million relatively easily with this model. Open it up to a larger audience, then open up the store to add-on modules, space stations, planets, etc. that people can buy for crazy amounts of money and the thing is a billion dollar game. Walking away is not an option because the result of delivering the game is much more beneficial than not.
The answer to that question will depend on why it failed ? If it failed from lack of effort and earnest development then yes it would be better. If it failed because the developers over reached then no .
Let this be an example on how to get your money back from Cloud Imperium Games. It's not to late.
Cloud Imperium Games (Cloud Imperium Games)
Apr 1, 18:04
Hi Greg,
We
are under no obligation to refund, however I have made a one time
exception. The $65 has been refunded and should appear on your statement
within 5-10 days.
Best,
Chelsea
Cloud Imperium Games
Customer Service Manager
Unauthenticated
Mar 29, 02:29
No you don't get to ask me any questions. I do not wish to support
your game. Refund my money. Change your company policy or do whatever
you need to do, but refund my money. Do the right thing here or make a
critic of me. I've already kept 2 buddies from buying this game, shall
we make some forum/blog posts to further dissuade potential backers.
Deny me a refund again and i'll file a complaint with Better Business
Bureau. Keep in mind i'm not some wet behind the ears kid, i'm a 34yr
old US Army veteran. I've been gaming since before you been working at
CIG and currently run a guild of 300+ active members. I want a refund,
you've given me nothing so far that the $5 access to beta can't provide.
I'm willing to lose the $5, but the remainder should be refunded. I'm
giving you the chance to do the right thing. Refunds are given all the
time, this should be no exception.
Best, Greg
________________________________
Cloud Imperium Games (Cloud Imperium Games)
Mar 24, 17:38
Hi there,
According
to our ToS we do not offer refunds. May I ask what exactly on our
website led you to believe that the finished game would be launching
soon?
Best,
Chelsea
Cloud Imperium Games
Customer Service Manager
Unauthenticated
Mar 21, 14:44
I would like a refund. I was under impression the game would be
launching soon, but its been months. Please refund any and all monies.
Failure to do so will result in BBB being contacted and negative reviews
online. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
Comments
As a gamer who watches trends in game development? Yes, because I have been horrified by how SC has upped the financial ante for participation in a game with their ridiculously priced ships and strong-arm concepts such as "lifetime insurance" or, more precisely, the lack thereof unless you buy by a certain date, etc.
I want those ideas and concepts to fail badly so we can get back to the idea that you make a game and then I pay you x$ if I want to play it and not much more after that except perhaps an amount in the neighborhood of $180 / year if I want to keep playing it.
I'm not comfortable in the first place with tying game play elements in any game to $ because it always undermines the idea of one same game for all of us. Even if the amount we need to spend to enjoy the full game experience is $180 per year or less, the dynamics of player participation in the same game are always thrown out of whack when features are sold piecemeal.
So that's just my personal bias and disposition against any form of F2P.
But F2P games are not all the same. Some are more transparent and honest in their costs than others. Some use the RNG of loot boxes or crafting success to sleazily extract much larger amounts of money from the obsessed. And to me it's not enough to stay away from that and chuckle at those who don't... I want to see the ones who benefit from the weakness of those other gamers who are more gullible (or addicted) punished for taking advantage of them.
Star Citizen's repulsive sale of ships for astronomical amounts, never before seen in space sims, is to me one of the worst examples of wealthy Hollywood types taking advantage of people to the tune of $90 Million+. They do it while using their PR machine to make "citizens" feel like they are part of something truly special with actresses giving inane speeches complete with manufactured water works about the incredible nobility of their participation. Those quasi-religious overtones just make the whole spectacle that much more sickening.
So yes, I would want to see them fail badly because it is something very fucked up that they're doing.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
None the less,i still cannot accept the way they run their business,that is i think one guy's mistake/problem and that is Chris.
However i would love to see hundreds of great quality games,i would be lost in choices but as is ,this is just not happening.I have a VERY strong gut feeling this game will not be up to par but simply a superficial game similar to Eve.That is just my gut feeling on what i have seen so far,doesn't make it official i can have a reall ygood gut feeling if i see something that warrants it.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
a) you are asking consumers who have no knowledge of how to evaluate business plans, technology risks, and what is and is-not reasonable time table (of software dev) to make investment decisions, and
b) they don't even get the upside if their investment works out.
I would much rather savvy investors are involved instead.
Plus, because of (1) ... devs have incentives to fool consumes, if not defrauding them blatantly, unless there is some accountability at the end.
Crowdfunding is used by those who don't want to take a personal risk -- they want you to take the risk for them.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
Like any good deception, there is enough truth in that to be credible at first glance.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
SC could be the Atari E.T. of the new millennium. The industry rose from the ashes of the bad game 80's better than could have been imagined. Are we now in the scam game 10's?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It's the either or part that is a dishonest pitch. "Can't get it done through the normal channels, therefore I must crowdfund."
I'm not talking in the abstract either. My son is part of an indie development team that does not use crowdfunding. He worked for a couple of years while doing his masters based on 10% of expected profits.
In his case, the game sold well and his 10% turned into the equivalent of very good retro wages. But it could have gone the other way and he could have seen very little return for his efforts. And he's not unique. This is the way most indie game developers work - at least with their first game.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Take this into account. World of Warcrafts budget was much higher than what CIG has currently. They also spent around 200 million. That was years ago and inflation has taken its toll.
If you're spending 200 million on a theme park MMO with cartoony graphics and linear progression I doubt 90 million will scratch the surface of "IRL Space Simulator with Ultimate Graphics and Entire Star Systems "
If devs cannot convince any investor to back them, it is dangerous to let them loose on consumers who cannot judge if the amount of money they asked for is enough for the project, if the technology is ready for the game, if the devs can in fact make it.
You cannot play "potential" .. that is the most dangerous word to lure people into giving up their money.
Just look at all the indie devs who don't need KS money. Investor routinely backed great risks. Heck, ANY new start-up is a great risk. The difference is that they can at least filter out the con man or the amateur who do not even have a decent plan. Can you do that?
It would not a bad thing if crowd-funding got hit. While i don't mind others flushing their money down the toilet for pipe dreams (after all it is not my money), it would be fun to see how they face these train wrecks, cognitive dissonance and all that.
OTOH, i doubt early access will be harmed. Personally i don't pay into early access (because that is not a finished product) .... but the consumer is getting something in return for that money ... and the state of the product is pretty clear ... so i don't think there is a problem. If someone goes in with open eyes about a product (instead of a promise that may not materialize), i don't see a problem.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
To give feedback on moderation, contact mikeb@mmorpg.com
It should be noted that all your complaints about "the impossible" are reasons why people backed this game. It's the people backing the project who took it to the next level, who increased the scope of the project. Granted, it kind of screwed the original KS backers, but they were also given the opportunity to get a refund.
Secondly, Chris Roberts is not going to walk away with anything. First of all, you're assuming that the SC community would ALLOW him to walk away. In reality there would likely be a class action suit or suits filed. He's got 1 million people that he'd be pissing off. Secondly, unless he walks away in the next 6 months, he will likely have nothing left to walk away with. The current per/employee cost, per year at CIG, based on an average salary of $75,000 (which I believe was quoted somewhere but can't find it) and a labour burden of 50% (which is reasonable) is $112,500 annually. That comes out to over $28 million annually based on CIGs current 250 person staff. Someone had some other numbers kicking around for employee counts, etc., but I believe it was something like 180 the previous year and 90 the year before that.So there's probably been around $56 million in burn already, plus, plus, I think there's probably not any more than $25 million to $30 million in the bank, and I think that's being pretty generous. Either way, he's not walking away with much. Especially when he's already proven he can make $100 million relatively easily with this model. Open it up to a larger audience, then open up the store to add-on modules, space stations, planets, etc. that people can buy for crazy amounts of money and the thing is a billion dollar game. Walking away is not an option because the result of delivering the game is much more beneficial than not.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Its always better to watch something succeed !
Have fun
Cloud Imperium Games (Cloud Imperium Games)
Apr 1, 18:04
Hi Greg,
We are under no obligation to refund, however I have made a one time exception. The $65 has been refunded and should appear on your statement within 5-10 days.
Best,
Chelsea
Cloud Imperium Games
Customer Service Manager
Unauthenticated
Mar 29, 02:29
No you don't get to ask me any questions. I do not wish to support your game. Refund my money. Change your company policy or do whatever you need to do, but refund my money. Do the right thing here or make a critic of me. I've already kept 2 buddies from buying this game, shall we make some forum/blog posts to further dissuade potential backers. Deny me a refund again and i'll file a complaint with Better Business Bureau. Keep in mind i'm not some wet behind the ears kid, i'm a 34yr old US Army veteran. I've been gaming since before you been working at CIG and currently run a guild of 300+ active members. I want a refund, you've given me nothing so far that the $5 access to beta can't provide. I'm willing to lose the $5, but the remainder should be refunded. I'm giving you the chance to do the right thing. Refunds are given all the time, this should be no exception.
Best,
Greg
________________________________
Cloud Imperium Games (Cloud Imperium Games)
Mar 24, 17:38
Hi there,
According to our ToS we do not offer refunds. May I ask what exactly on our website led you to believe that the finished game would be launching soon?
Best,
Chelsea
Cloud Imperium Games
Customer Service Manager
Unauthenticated
Mar 21, 14:44
I would like a refund. I was under impression the game would be launching soon, but its been months. Please refund any and all monies. Failure to do so will result in BBB being contacted and negative reviews online. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.