Charge Back and Refunds

mr1602

UnleadedRev said:

mr1602 said:

UnleadedRev said:

This is what CIG sent me, they won't give me a refund.
Should I contact my credit card company?

Thank you very much for contacting us.

I would lodge a claim with DCBA first and FTC (if you are in USA).
Get case numbers for both and then contact your credit card company.
Make sure they are aware that a California AG is now looking into the matter; refer to the case number 699667.

Any advice on how to word it?

Stay formal and factual.
A chronological order of your payment and what you purchased with transaction numbers.
Why you are seeking a refund (use the 1st post of this thread) and proof you went through CIG's refund process but was rejected.

mr1602

Xeno.phon said:

Back game in development, try and get a refund years later.......not sure how you can think a refund is legit. Play ToS semantics all you like, RSI can prove progress and ongoing development, you are not entitled to anything but a copy of the finished product.

I don't think you will be able to convince anyone that you know more about the law / legal system than the California Attorney General.

mr1602

I am told that backers who are wanting to get a refund are still getting the 'ToS' letter. The 'company line' seems to be that the 'ToS' has always been that way since the beginning of crowd-funding. 
This is after they specifically state that they never agreed to the new ToS and provide links to the old ToS that contradict that claim via the web.archive link.

A google search of 'Star Citizen Refund' right now points to the news story by a gaming site on the $3000 story. http://www.pcinvasion.com/star-citizen-backer-earns-3k-refund-contacting-us-district-attorney
So it is not as if the backers don't know how to get their money back.

Not seeing the logic of the continual 'deny refund' policy by CIG. The Attorney General is now involved, DCBA is 'building a case' and gaming media is now reporting it.  
This is 'Barbra Streisand Effect' playing on stage and we have all seen how that story ends.

Erillion

mr1602 said:

 we have all seen how that story ends.

Yep. In my opinion: A few people will get their refunds and the other half million has never heard or cared about it.


Have fun

Kefo

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

 we have all seen how that story ends.

Yep. A few people will get their refunds and the other half million has never heard or cared about it.


Have fun

Your opinion unless you can show is the number of backers that have requested a refund to date and can show us the number in the future that will also request.

CIG did a awesome job this time shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of granting a refund when the backer brought up the old TOS they signed they chose to continue the bull of no refunds and managed to get a DA sniffing around. 

CrazKanuk

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

 we have all seen how that story ends.

Yep. A few people will get their refunds and the other half million has never heard or cared about it.


Have fun

Your opinion unless you can show is the number of backers that have requested a refund to date and can show us the number in the future that will also request.

CIG did a awesome job this time shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of granting a refund when the backer brought up the old TOS they signed they chose to continue the bull of no refunds and managed to get a DA sniffing around. 

You're wrong. Actually, CIG sticking to their policy is painful for them, but will hopefully set better expectations and encourage legislation similar to PayPal in the future. I'm all for consumer rights, but to what end? Crowdfunding is a pledge in good faith with the understanding that whatever it is that is being done might fail. If you don't, generally, understand that, then you shouldn't be putting your money in. Similarly, there has been clear cases where purchases were made with the intent of charging back, essentially acting maliciously against this project, specifically. Unfortunately the case of Star Citizen is something that might actually bring about negative aspects. Also, we could end up seeing fewer projects off any sort of good will refunds in the future, since policy changes are now being attacked after the fact, without knowledge of why. 

Let me ask you this, if you were to pledge money to a 10 year-old who was supposed to run in a marathon for cancer research, and they didn't finish the race, would you ask for your money back? I feel quite confident that you wouldn't. Would you go on some sort of online attack against the youngster because they didn't finish the race? Probably not. 

Here's the reality of the situation. CIG offered refunds in good will up until February 2016. That was well after all the hoopla and crazyness and realizations that this project was not delivering to it's 2014 estimate. At which point does the person who pledged money to the project need to take some responsibility? There has been plenty of call for accountability on the part of CIG, yet there has been zero on the part of the community. At which point does it become the responsibility of the user? Oh, and I will be writing a letter to the DCBA and the district attorney of LA expressing my concerns over the malicious behavior surrounding this project, and I would encourage those within similar ideas to do the same. Honestly, it has to stop. Not even for Star Citizen, but for the sake of crowdfunding in general. 

WalkinGlenn

mr1602 said:

I am told that backers who are wanting to get a refund are still getting the 'ToS' letter. The 'company line' seems to be that the 'ToS' has always been that way since the beginning of crowd-funding. 
This is after they specifically state that they never agreed to the new ToS and provide links to the old ToS that contradict that claim via the web.archive link.

A google search of 'Star Citizen Refund' right now points to the news story by a gaming site on the $3000 story. http://www.pcinvasion.com/star-citizen-backer-earns-3k-refund-contacting-us-district-attorney
So it is not as if the backers don't know how to get their money back.

Not seeing the logic of the continual 'deny refund' policy by CIG. The Attorney General is now involved, DCBA is 'building a case' and gaming media is now reporting it.  
This is 'Barbra Streisand Effect' playing on stage and we have all seen how that story ends.

 That story deserves its own thread. The DA is asking more people to step forward so they can build a case.

This should have it's own thread for more visibility.

Erillion

WalkinGlenn said:

  That story deserves its own thread. The DA is asking more people to step forward so they can build a case.

This should have it's own thread for more visibility.

Then start one.


Have fun

Turrican187

CrazKanuk said:
[...]

Let me ask you this, if you were to pledge money to a 10 year-old who was supposed to run in a marathon for cancer research, and they didn't finish the race, would you ask for your money back? I feel quite confident that you wouldn't. Would you go on some sort of online attack against the youngster because they didn't finish the race? Probably not. 

[...] 

Indeed because you can compare a charity event with a profit orientated multi million dollar company ...
[mod edit]

Kefo

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

 we have all seen how that story ends.

Yep. A few people will get their refunds and the other half million has never heard or cared about it.


Have fun

Your opinion unless you can show is the number of backers that have requested a refund to date and can show us the number in the future that will also request.

CIG did a awesome job this time shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of granting a refund when the backer brought up the old TOS they signed they chose to continue the bull of no refunds and managed to get a DA sniffing around. 

You're wrong. Actually, CIG sticking to their policy is painful for them, but will hopefully set better expectations and encourage legislation similar to PayPal in the future. I'm all for consumer rights, but to what end? Crowdfunding is a pledge in good faith with the understanding that whatever it is that is being done might fail. If you don't, generally, understand that, then you shouldn't be putting your money in. Similarly, there has been clear cases where purchases were made with the intent of charging back, essentially acting maliciously against this project, specifically. Unfortunately the case of Star Citizen is something that might actually bring about negative aspects. Also, we could end up seeing fewer projects off any sort of good will refunds in the future, since policy changes are now being attacked after the fact, without knowledge of why. 

Let me ask you this, if you were to pledge money to a 10 year-old who was supposed to run in a marathon for cancer research, and they didn't finish the race, would you ask for your money back? I feel quite confident that you wouldn't. Would you go on some sort of online attack against the youngster because they didn't finish the race? Probably not. 

Here's the reality of the situation. CIG offered refunds in good will up until February 2016. That was well after all the hoopla and crazyness and realizations that this project was not delivering to it's 2014 estimate. At which point does the person who pledged money to the project need to take some responsibility? There has been plenty of call for accountability on the part of CIG, yet there has been zero on the part of the community. At which point does it become the responsibility of the user? Oh, and I will be writing a letter to the DCBA and the district attorney of LA expressing my concerns over the malicious behavior surrounding this project, and I would encourage those within similar ideas to do the same. Honestly, it has to stop. Not even for Star Citizen, but for the sake of crowdfunding in general. 

You're reply while well written falls apart when you come to realize that CIG can call this crowdfunding all they want but they have been selling digital items in their own online store for a while now. Also there's a difference between charity and crowdfunding/selling digital assets. I'd give the kid money because it would make me feel good to help out cancer research and to see the kid helping out as well. I don't give money to companies out of the kindness of my heart, I give it to them in exchange for something else.

Those who put in for Kickstarter you can call it a pledge but in my mind when you transition to your own online store selling assets it's no longer a pledge and I'm inclined to think the DA is thinking the same thing since they are now gaining some interest in all this.

Backers were putting up with CIG's constant changing of the goalposts with their TOS changes and moving back the date of 12 months to 18 months. After it was removed altogether I think it was the final straw for some so they are now demanding CIG adhere to the promises they originally made.

What accountability do you want the community to show? That they will happily shut up and bend over to take it when they are told that CIG is refusing to adhere to its own TOS or the consumer protection laws? I encourage you to write letters to the DA defending CIG's honor and they will probably take them all and file them away into the "don't give a shit category". They will probably be looking to see if CIG is violating consumer rights and if they find anything they will dig deeper. 

CrazKanuk

Kefo said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

 we have all seen how that story ends.

Yep. A few people will get their refunds and the other half million has never heard or cared about it.


Have fun

Your opinion unless you can show is the number of backers that have requested a refund to date and can show us the number in the future that will also request.

CIG did a awesome job this time shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of granting a refund when the backer brought up the old TOS they signed they chose to continue the bull of no refunds and managed to get a DA sniffing around. 

You're wrong. Actually, CIG sticking to their policy is painful for them, but will hopefully set better expectations and encourage legislation similar to PayPal in the future. I'm all for consumer rights, but to what end? Crowdfunding is a pledge in good faith with the understanding that whatever it is that is being done might fail. If you don't, generally, understand that, then you shouldn't be putting your money in. Similarly, there has been clear cases where purchases were made with the intent of charging back, essentially acting maliciously against this project, specifically. Unfortunately the case of Star Citizen is something that might actually bring about negative aspects. Also, we could end up seeing fewer projects off any sort of good will refunds in the future, since policy changes are now being attacked after the fact, without knowledge of why. 

Let me ask you this, if you were to pledge money to a 10 year-old who was supposed to run in a marathon for cancer research, and they didn't finish the race, would you ask for your money back? I feel quite confident that you wouldn't. Would you go on some sort of online attack against the youngster because they didn't finish the race? Probably not. 

Here's the reality of the situation. CIG offered refunds in good will up until February 2016. That was well after all the hoopla and crazyness and realizations that this project was not delivering to it's 2014 estimate. At which point does the person who pledged money to the project need to take some responsibility? There has been plenty of call for accountability on the part of CIG, yet there has been zero on the part of the community. At which point does it become the responsibility of the user? Oh, and I will be writing a letter to the DCBA and the district attorney of LA expressing my concerns over the malicious behavior surrounding this project, and I would encourage those within similar ideas to do the same. Honestly, it has to stop. Not even for Star Citizen, but for the sake of crowdfunding in general. 

You're reply while well written falls apart when you come to realize that CIG can call this crowdfunding all they want but they have been selling digital items in their own online store for a while now. Also there's a difference between charity and crowdfunding/selling digital assets. I'd give the kid money because it would make me feel good to help out cancer research and to see the kid helping out as well. I don't give money to companies out of the kindness of my heart, I give it to them in exchange for something else.

Those who put in for Kickstarter you can call it a pledge but in my mind when you transition to your own online store selling assets it's no longer a pledge and I'm inclined to think the DA is thinking the same thing since they are now gaining some interest in all this.

Backers were putting up with CIG's constant changing of the goalposts with their TOS changes and moving back the date of 12 months to 18 months. After it was removed altogether I think it was the final straw for some so they are now demanding CIG adhere to the promises they originally made.

What accountability do you want the community to show? That they will happily shut up and bend over to take it when they are told that CIG is refusing to adhere to its own TOS or the consumer protection laws? I encourage you to write letters to the DA defending CIG's honor and they will probably take them all and file them away into the "don't give a shit category". They will probably be looking to see if CIG is violating consumer rights and if they find anything they will dig deeper. 

Lol, digital assets or not, you know what you're getting into. I'm really sorry, but the claim of ignorance should be gone for this project. You know what you're getting into, you know what you ARE into. 

What does it have to do with "taking it"? As a backer, you are well aware of the risks at this point, so you're acting maliciously against anyone else who is backing the project. 

As far as the DA's office is concerned, I did write them a letter. It was not with regards to CIG, it was with regards to those who have taken it upon themselves to act maliciously against a company. In addition, it was about department policies and, apparently, investigators encouraging complainants to have others file complaints. By this time, if they don't have enough information or complaints to actually do something, is this simply not inciting? It's actually encouraging bad behavior and Internet witch hunts against a company with 300 employees. So it's a question of policy. Are you asking people to go out on the Internet and start riots over causes or are they actually going to do their job and to their due diligence? 

Sorry, while I agree that policies surrounding crowdfunding DO need to change, the current direction for those changes seems to be leaning towards policy changes which would discourage crowdfunding altogether. Honestly, if the AG or DCBA is at all interested, walk into their offices and do a forensic audit. Close the fucking book on the case for now and in the future. Then deny future requests for refunds, if it's determined they are working towards a product. Why? Because the customer isn't always right!! If they did that, I would be happier than a pig in shit. Whether the outcome be good or bad, the overall outcome for crowdfunding would be good. 

Octagon7711

Apologies if this has already been posted, really don't want to read through all these posts to see.  But the guy got his 3K refund.

http://www.pcinvasion.com/star-citizen-backer-earns-3k-refund-contacting-us-district-attorney

NEWS

A dissatisfied Star Citizen backer has managed to earn a full refund of $3,000 USD from Cloud Imperium Games, in a struggle dating back to mid-June. The backer, who goes by the name ‘Streetroller’ (their real name has not been shared), successfully received their refunded sum after filing a complaint with the District Attorney of Los Angeles.

CrazKanuk

Turrican187 said:

CrazKanuk said:
[...]

Let me ask you this, if you were to pledge money to a 10 year-old who was supposed to run in a marathon for cancer research, and they didn't finish the race, would you ask for your money back? I feel quite confident that you wouldn't. Would you go on some sort of online attack against the youngster because they didn't finish the race? Probably not. 

[...] 

Indeed because you can compare a charity event with a profit orientated multi million dollar company ...
[mod edit]

Really? Is it? It seems you have a misunderstanding of crowdfunding. I might encourage you to read up on it here 

What's unethical is the fact that there are people who are, literally, maliciously buying and charging back purchases in an attempt to harm a company. Also, not only does the Internet encourage it, but they endorse it. Honestly, I'm very happy I'm not an American. Unfortunately it's descended into a country interested more in the court of public opinion than actually proving something using factual evidence. 

BeansnBread

The internet, eh? Sounds like you are definitely more enlightened than "America."

WalkinGlenn

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

 we have all seen how that story ends.

Yep. A few people will get their refunds and the other half million has never heard or cared about it.


Have fun

Your opinion unless you can show is the number of backers that have requested a refund to date and can show us the number in the future that will also request.

CIG did a awesome job this time shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of granting a refund when the backer brought up the old TOS they signed they chose to continue the bull of no refunds and managed to get a DA sniffing around. 

You're wrong. Actually, CIG sticking to their policy is painful for them, but will hopefully set better expectations and encourage legislation similar to PayPal in the future. I'm all for consumer rights, but to what end? Crowdfunding is a pledge in good faith with the understanding that whatever it is that is being done might fail. If you don't, generally, understand that, then you shouldn't be putting your money in. Similarly, there has been clear cases where purchases were made with the intent of charging back, essentially acting maliciously against this project, specifically. Unfortunately the case of Star Citizen is something that might actually bring about negative aspects. Also, we could end up seeing fewer projects off any sort of good will refunds in the future, since policy changes are now being attacked after the fact, without knowledge of why. 

Let me ask you this, if you were to pledge money to a 10 year-old who was supposed to run in a marathon for cancer research, and they didn't finish the race, would you ask for your money back? I feel quite confident that you wouldn't. Would you go on some sort of online attack against the youngster because they didn't finish the race? Probably not. 

Here's the reality of the situation. CIG offered refunds in good will up until February 2016. That was well after all the hoopla and crazyness and realizations that this project was not delivering to it's 2014 estimate. At which point does the person who pledged money to the project need to take some responsibility? There has been plenty of call for accountability on the part of CIG, yet there has been zero on the part of the community. At which point does it become the responsibility of the user? Oh, and I will be writing a letter to the DCBA and the district attorney of LA expressing my concerns over the malicious behavior surrounding this project, and I would encourage those within similar ideas to do the same. Honestly, it has to stop. Not even for Star Citizen, but for the sake of crowdfunding in general. 

You're reply while well written falls apart when you come to realize that CIG can call this crowdfunding all they want but they have been selling digital items in their own online store for a while now. Also there's a difference between charity and crowdfunding/selling digital assets. I'd give the kid money because it would make me feel good to help out cancer research and to see the kid helping out as well. I don't give money to companies out of the kindness of my heart, I give it to them in exchange for something else.

Those who put in for Kickstarter you can call it a pledge but in my mind when you transition to your own online store selling assets it's no longer a pledge and I'm inclined to think the DA is thinking the same thing since they are now gaining some interest in all this.

Backers were putting up with CIG's constant changing of the goalposts with their TOS changes and moving back the date of 12 months to 18 months. After it was removed altogether I think it was the final straw for some so they are now demanding CIG adhere to the promises they originally made.

What accountability do you want the community to show? That they will happily shut up and bend over to take it when they are told that CIG is refusing to adhere to its own TOS or the consumer protection laws? I encourage you to write letters to the DA defending CIG's honor and they will probably take them all and file them away into the "don't give a shit category". They will probably be looking to see if CIG is violating consumer rights and if they find anything they will dig deeper. 

Lol, digital assets or not, you know what you're getting into. I'm really sorry, but the claim of ignorance should be gone for this project. You know what you're getting into, you know what you ARE into. 

What does it have to do with "taking it"? As a backer, you are well aware of the risks at this point, so you're acting maliciously against anyone else who is backing the project. 

As far as the DA's office is concerned, I did write them a letter. It was not with regards to CIG, it was with regards to those who have taken it upon themselves to act maliciously against a company. In addition, it was about department policies and, apparently, investigators encouraging complainants to have others file complaints. By this time, if they don't have enough information or complaints to actually do something, is this simply not inciting? It's actually encouraging bad behavior and Internet witch hunts against a company with 300 employees. So it's a question of policy. Are you asking people to go out on the Internet and start riots over causes or are they actually going to do their job and to their due diligence? 

Sorry, while I agree that policies surrounding crowdfunding DO need to change, the current direction for those changes seems to be leaning towards policy changes which would discourage crowdfunding altogether. Honestly, if the AG or DCBA is at all interested, walk into their offices and do a forensic audit. Close the fucking book on the case for now and in the future. Then deny future requests for refunds, if it's determined they are working towards a product. Why? Because the customer isn't always right!! If they did that, I would be happier than a pig in shit. Whether the outcome be good or bad, the overall outcome for crowdfunding would be good. 

 Sorry but your logic is faulted here.

The money for this project wasn't a donation. The money was for a product. CIG originally promises to deliver said product within a particular time frame. The consequences being you would be entitled to a full refund if they were unable to deliver before the time ran out. They recently decided to change that promise by changing their TOS, eliminating the time frame as well as refunds. 

This is crooked plain and simple. This person getting his 3000$ back is just the tip of the iceberg myfriend.

CrazKanuk

WalkinGlenn said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

 we have all seen how that story ends.

Yep. A few people will get their refunds and the other half million has never heard or cared about it.


Have fun

Your opinion unless you can show is the number of backers that have requested a refund to date and can show us the number in the future that will also request.

CIG did a awesome job this time shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of granting a refund when the backer brought up the old TOS they signed they chose to continue the bull of no refunds and managed to get a DA sniffing around. 

You're wrong. Actually, CIG sticking to their policy is painful for them, but will hopefully set better expectations and encourage legislation similar to PayPal in the future. I'm all for consumer rights, but to what end? Crowdfunding is a pledge in good faith with the understanding that whatever it is that is being done might fail. If you don't, generally, understand that, then you shouldn't be putting your money in. Similarly, there has been clear cases where purchases were made with the intent of charging back, essentially acting maliciously against this project, specifically. Unfortunately the case of Star Citizen is something that might actually bring about negative aspects. Also, we could end up seeing fewer projects off any sort of good will refunds in the future, since policy changes are now being attacked after the fact, without knowledge of why. 

Let me ask you this, if you were to pledge money to a 10 year-old who was supposed to run in a marathon for cancer research, and they didn't finish the race, would you ask for your money back? I feel quite confident that you wouldn't. Would you go on some sort of online attack against the youngster because they didn't finish the race? Probably not. 

Here's the reality of the situation. CIG offered refunds in good will up until February 2016. That was well after all the hoopla and crazyness and realizations that this project was not delivering to it's 2014 estimate. At which point does the person who pledged money to the project need to take some responsibility? There has been plenty of call for accountability on the part of CIG, yet there has been zero on the part of the community. At which point does it become the responsibility of the user? Oh, and I will be writing a letter to the DCBA and the district attorney of LA expressing my concerns over the malicious behavior surrounding this project, and I would encourage those within similar ideas to do the same. Honestly, it has to stop. Not even for Star Citizen, but for the sake of crowdfunding in general. 

You're reply while well written falls apart when you come to realize that CIG can call this crowdfunding all they want but they have been selling digital items in their own online store for a while now. Also there's a difference between charity and crowdfunding/selling digital assets. I'd give the kid money because it would make me feel good to help out cancer research and to see the kid helping out as well. I don't give money to companies out of the kindness of my heart, I give it to them in exchange for something else.

Those who put in for Kickstarter you can call it a pledge but in my mind when you transition to your own online store selling assets it's no longer a pledge and I'm inclined to think the DA is thinking the same thing since they are now gaining some interest in all this.

Backers were putting up with CIG's constant changing of the goalposts with their TOS changes and moving back the date of 12 months to 18 months. After it was removed altogether I think it was the final straw for some so they are now demanding CIG adhere to the promises they originally made.

What accountability do you want the community to show? That they will happily shut up and bend over to take it when they are told that CIG is refusing to adhere to its own TOS or the consumer protection laws? I encourage you to write letters to the DA defending CIG's honor and they will probably take them all and file them away into the "don't give a shit category". They will probably be looking to see if CIG is violating consumer rights and if they find anything they will dig deeper. 

Lol, digital assets or not, you know what you're getting into. I'm really sorry, but the claim of ignorance should be gone for this project. You know what you're getting into, you know what you ARE into. 

What does it have to do with "taking it"? As a backer, you are well aware of the risks at this point, so you're acting maliciously against anyone else who is backing the project. 

As far as the DA's office is concerned, I did write them a letter. It was not with regards to CIG, it was with regards to those who have taken it upon themselves to act maliciously against a company. In addition, it was about department policies and, apparently, investigators encouraging complainants to have others file complaints. By this time, if they don't have enough information or complaints to actually do something, is this simply not inciting? It's actually encouraging bad behavior and Internet witch hunts against a company with 300 employees. So it's a question of policy. Are you asking people to go out on the Internet and start riots over causes or are they actually going to do their job and to their due diligence? 

Sorry, while I agree that policies surrounding crowdfunding DO need to change, the current direction for those changes seems to be leaning towards policy changes which would discourage crowdfunding altogether. Honestly, if the AG or DCBA is at all interested, walk into their offices and do a forensic audit. Close the fucking book on the case for now and in the future. Then deny future requests for refunds, if it's determined they are working towards a product. Why? Because the customer isn't always right!! If they did that, I would be happier than a pig in shit. Whether the outcome be good or bad, the overall outcome for crowdfunding would be good. 

 Sorry but your logic is faulted here.

The money for this project wasn't a donation. The money was for a product. CIG originally promises to deliver said product within a particular time frame. The consequences being you would be entitled to a full refund if they were unable to deliver before the time ran out. They recently decided to change that promise by changing their TOS, eliminating the time frame as well as refunds. 

This is crooked plain and simple. This person getting his 3000$ back is just the tip of the iceberg myfriend.

Your logic is flawed because it's not a product. You're pledging to an idea. Tell me how this differs from all other crowdfunding projects. Please, explain, because I really want to know. 

MaxBacon

The logic used here keeps confusing me.

I can't tell the difference anymore between a Crowdfund / Kickstarter / etc... and one game you go to the Steam Store and buy... Because far the ideology here, they're the same thing.

Reminds me now of all the drama surrounding Kickstarter because entitled people use it as a Pre-Order platform.

WalkinGlenn

CrazKanuk said:

WalkinGlenn said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

 we have all seen how that story ends.

Yep. A few people will get their refunds and the other half million has never heard or cared about it.


Have fun

Your opinion unless you can show is the number of backers that have requested a refund to date and can show us the number in the future that will also request.

CIG did a awesome job this time shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of granting a refund when the backer brought up the old TOS they signed they chose to continue the bull of no refunds and managed to get a DA sniffing around. 

You're wrong. Actually, CIG sticking to their policy is painful for them, but will hopefully set better expectations and encourage legislation similar to PayPal in the future. I'm all for consumer rights, but to what end? Crowdfunding is a pledge in good faith with the understanding that whatever it is that is being done might fail. If you don't, generally, understand that, then you shouldn't be putting your money in. Similarly, there has been clear cases where purchases were made with the intent of charging back, essentially acting maliciously against this project, specifically. Unfortunately the case of Star Citizen is something that might actually bring about negative aspects. Also, we could end up seeing fewer projects off any sort of good will refunds in the future, since policy changes are now being attacked after the fact, without knowledge of why. 
 will dig deeper. 

Lol, digital assets or not, you know what you're getting into. I'm really sorry, but the claim of ignorance should be gone for this project. You know what you're getting into, you know what you ARE into. 

What does it have to do with "taking it"? As a backer, you are well aware of the risks at this point, so you're acting maliciously against anyone else who is backing the project. 

As far as the DA's office is concerned, I did write them a letter. It was not with regards to CIG, it was with regards to those who have taken it upon themselves to act maliciously against a company. In addition, it was about department policies and, apparently, investigators encouraging complainants to have others file complaints. By this time, if they don't have enough information or complaints to actually do something, is this simply not inciting? It's actually encouraging bad behavior and Internet witch hunts against a company with 300 employees. So it's a question of policy. Are you asking people to go out on the Internet and start riots over causes or are they actually going to do their job and to their due diligence? 

Sorry, while I agree that policies surrounding crowdfunding DO need to change, the current direction for those changes seems to be leaning towards policy changes which would discourage crowdfunding altogether. Honestly, if the AG or DCBA is at all interested, walk into their offices and do a forensic audit. Close the fucking book on the case for now and in the future. Then deny future requests for refunds, if it's determined they are working

 Sorry but your logic is faulted here.

The money for this project wasn't a donation. The money was for a product. CIG originally promises to deliver said product within a particular time frame. The consequences being you would be entitled to a full refund if they were unable to deliver before the time ran out. They recently decided to change that promise by changing their TOS, eliminating the time frame as well as refunds. 

This is crooked plain and simple. This person getting his 3000$ back is just the tip of the iceberg myfriend.

Your logic is flawed because it's not a product. You're pledging to an idea. Tell me how this differs from all other crowdfunding projects. Please, explain, because I really want to know. 

 Sorry but you're 100% wrong ,and I'm not sure if you're just trolling or seriously misinformed. Money given to CIG has always been for a product as the end result. You give them money now, younger a game later. They set guidelines on time frame and they set the consequences when their time frame would expire. They didn't deliver on the promises they made so they changed the TOS.

Sorry man you're 100% wrong and I don't think any serious person believe what your saying here.

CrazKanuk

WalkinGlenn said:

CrazKanuk said:

WalkinGlenn said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

 we have all seen how that story ends.

Yep. A few people will get their refunds and the other half million has never heard or cared about it.


Have fun

Your opinion unless you can show is the number of backers that have requested a refund to date and can show us the number in the future that will also request.

CIG did a awesome job this time shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of granting a refund when the backer brought up the old TOS they signed they chose to continue the bull of no refunds and managed to get a DA sniffing around. 

You're wrong. Actually, CIG sticking to their policy is painful for them, but will hopefully set better expectations and encourage legislation similar to PayPal in the future. I'm all for consumer rights, but to what end? Crowdfunding is a pledge in good faith with the understanding that whatever it is that is being done might fail. If you don't, generally, understand that, then you shouldn't be putting your money in. Similarly, there has been clear cases where purchases were made with the intent of charging back, essentially acting maliciously against this project, specifically. Unfortunately the case of Star Citizen is something that might actually bring about negative aspects. Also, we could end up seeing fewer projects off any sort of good will refunds in the future, since policy changes are now being attacked after the fact, without knowledge of why. 
 will dig deeper. 

Lol, digital assets or not, you know what you're getting into. I'm really sorry, but the claim of ignorance should be gone for this project. You know what you're getting into, you know what you ARE into. 

What does it have to do with "taking it"? As a backer, you are well aware of the risks at this point, so you're acting maliciously against anyone else who is backing the project. 

As far as the DA's office is concerned, I did write them a letter. It was not with regards to CIG, it was with regards to those who have taken it upon themselves to act maliciously against a company. In addition, it was about department policies and, apparently, investigators encouraging complainants to have others file complaints. By this time, if they don't have enough information or complaints to actually do something, is this simply not inciting? It's actually encouraging bad behavior and Internet witch hunts against a company with 300 employees. So it's a question of policy. Are you asking people to go out on the Internet and start riots over causes or are they actually going to do their job and to their due diligence? 

Sorry, while I agree that policies surrounding crowdfunding DO need to change, the current direction for those changes seems to be leaning towards policy changes which would discourage crowdfunding altogether. Honestly, if the AG or DCBA is at all interested, walk into their offices and do a forensic audit. Close the fucking book on the case for now and in the future. Then deny future requests for refunds, if it's determined they are working

 Sorry but your logic is faulted here.

The money for this project wasn't a donation. The money was for a product. CIG originally promises to deliver said product within a particular time frame. The consequences being you would be entitled to a full refund if they were unable to deliver before the time ran out. They recently decided to change that promise by changing their TOS, eliminating the time frame as well as refunds. 

This is crooked plain and simple. This person getting his 3000$ back is just the tip of the iceberg myfriend.

Your logic is flawed because it's not a product. You're pledging to an idea. Tell me how this differs from all other crowdfunding projects. Please, explain, because I really want to know. 

 Sorry but you're 100% wrong ,and I'm not sure if you're just trolling or seriously misinformed. Money given to CIG has always been for a product as the end result. You give them money now, younger a game later. They set guidelines on time frame and they set the consequences when their time frame would expire. They didn't deliver on the promises they made so they changed the TOS.

Sorry man you're 100% wrong and I don't think any serious person believe what your saying here.

Well, first of all, you're 100% wrong. I can't tell if you're just trolling or seriously misinformed. 

This is a crowdfunded project. Crowdfunding means accepting money as a means of funding product development where, upon successful completion, the back gets a pre-determined reward of some sort. Read about it. This is not a pre-order of any sort, and if that's the prevailing understanding of what crowdfunding is, then it's sad that this misinformation has ballooned so much. 

Anyway, I'm sorry that you feel so strongly that you're pre-ordering something. I'd suggest staying away from crowdfunding in the future. Stick to things which are guaranteed, that you can physically put your hands on. 

Anyway, it's a pointless venture, there will obviously be no convincing you otherwise and it's unlikely you'll convince me, if my understanding of your position is correct. 

WalkinGlenn

CrazKanuk said:

WalkinGlenn said:

CrazKanuk said:

WalkinGlenn said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

 we have all seen how that story ends.

Yep. A few people will get their refunds and the other half million has never heard or cared about it.


Have fun

Your opinion unless you can show is the number of backers that have requested a refund to date and can show us the number in the future that will also request.

CIG did a awesome job this time shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of granting a refund when the backer brought up the old TOS they signed they chose to continue the bull of no refunds and managed to get a DA sniffing around. 

You're wrong. Actually, CIG sticking to their policy is painful for them, but will hopefully set better expectations and encourage legislation similar to PayPal in the future. I'm all for consumer rights, but to what end? Crowdfunding is a pledge in good faith with the understanding that whatever it is that is being done might fail. If you don't, generally, understand that, then you shouldn't be putting your money in. Similarly, there has been clear cases where purchases were made with the intent of charging back, essentially acting maliciously against this project, specifically. Unfortunately the case of Star Citizen is something that might actually bring about negative aspects. Also, we could end up seeing fewer projects off any sort of good will refunds in the future, since policy changes are now being attacked after the fact, without knowledge of why. 
 will dig deeper. 

Lol, digital assets or not, you know what you're getting into. I'm really sorry, but the claim of ignorance should be gone for this project. You know what you're getting into, you know what you ARE into. 

What does it have to do with "taking it"? As a backer, you are well aware of the risks at this point, so you're acting maliciously against anyone else who is backing the project. 

As far as the DA's office is concerned, I did write them a letter. It was not with regards to CIG, it was with regards to those who have taken it upon themselves to act maliciously against a company. In addition, it was about department policies and, apparently, investigators encouraging complainants to have others file complaints. By this time, if they don't have enough information or complaints to actually do something, is this simply not inciting? It's actually encouraging bad behavior and Internet witch hunts against a company with 300 employees. So it's a question of policy. Are you asking people to go out on the Internet and start riots over causes or are they actually going to do their job and to their due diligence? 

Sorry, while I agree that policies surrounding crowdfunding DO need to change, the current direction for those changes seems to be leaning towards policy changes which would discourage crowdfunding altogether. Honestly, if the AG or DCBA is at all interested, walk into their offices and do a forensic audit. Close the fucking book on the case for now and in the future. Then deny future requests for refunds, if it's determined they are working

 Sorry but your logic is faulted here.

The money for this project wasn't a donation. The money was for a product. CIG originally promises to deliver said product within a particular time frame. The consequences being you would be entitled to a full refund if they were unable to deliver before the time ran out. They recently decided to change that promise by changing their TOS, eliminating the time frame as well as refunds. 

This is crooked plain and simple. This person getting his 3000$ back is just the tip of the iceberg myfriend.

Your logic is flawed because it's not a product. You're pledging to an idea. Tell me how this differs from all other crowdfunding projects. Please, explain, because I really want to know. 

 Sorry but you're 100% wrong ,and I'm not sure if you're just trolling or seriously misinformed. Money given to CIG has always been for a product as the end result. You give them money now, younger a game later. They set guidelines on time frame and they set the consequences when their time frame would expire. They didn't deliver on the promises they made so they changed the TOS.

Sorry man you're 100% wrong and I don't think any serious person believe what your saying here.

Well, first of all, you're 100% wrong. I can't tell if you're just trolling or seriously misinformed. 

This is a crowdfunded project. Crowdfunding means accepting money as a means of funding product development where, upon successful completion, the back gets a pre-determined reward of some sort. Read about it. This is not a pre-order of any sort, and if that's the prevailing understanding of what crowdfunding is, then it's sad that this misinformation has ballooned so much. 

Anyway, I'm sorry that you feel so strongly that you're pre-ordering something. I'd suggest staying away from crowdfunding in the future. Stick to things which are guaranteed, that you can physically put your hands on. 

Anyway, it's a pointless venture, there will obviously be no convincing you otherwise and it's unlikely you'll convince me, if my understanding of your position is correct. 

 Yeah let's just agree to disagree here.

So I'll just leave on this note. The Los Angles AG office felt otherwise contrary to Orton's "We are right but we're gonna give him his 3000$ back anyway" just to get them off their backs. 

I think they (the Attorney General) know the laws better than both of us.

Octagon7711

'After an hour long discussion about Star Citizen, Streetroller says he was told to encourage others to file complaints against CIG with the DCBA.

What’s abundantly clear from this dispute is that it is still possible to extract quite sizeable Star Citizen refunds from CIG, providing you’re prepared to show serious intent by filing complaints with relevant US business and consumer bureaus.'

http://www.pcinvasion.com/star-citizen-backer-earns-3k-refund-contacting-us-district-attorney

From this it appears the justice department is on the side of the consumer here.

SpottyGekko

If we go with the "pledge = legal purchase" idea, then Kickstarter-funded games are doomed.

How many people would really pledge if there was no tangible benefit attached whatever ? 
How many KS "backers" are giving money purely out of altruism ?

A KS-funded project would have to be able to guarantee full refunds to everyone at any point. That is logically impossible, because the KS funds are burnt as part of the dev process. They could end up legally compelled to make refunds that they simply cannot pay. No sane dev team would accept that risk.

WalkinGlenn

SpottyGekko said:

If we go with the "pledge = legal purchase" idea, then Kickstarter-funded games are doomed.

How many people would really pledge if there was no tangible benefit attached whatever ? 
How many KS "backers" are giving money purely out of altruism ?

A KS-funded project would have to be able to guarantee full refunds to everyone at any point. That is logically impossible, because the KS funds are burnt as part of the dev process. They could end up legally compelled to make refunds that they simply cannot pay. No sane dev team would accept that risk.

 There has to be a mechanism inplaced to force accountability, otherwise it will just be a free for all for people looking to rip off the public.

CrazKanuk

WalkinGlenn said:

SpottyGekko said:

If we go with the "pledge = legal purchase" idea, then Kickstarter-funded games are doomed.

How many people would really pledge if there was no tangible benefit attached whatever ? 
How many KS "backers" are giving money purely out of altruism ?

A KS-funded project would have to be able to guarantee full refunds to everyone at any point. That is logically impossible, because the KS funds are burnt as part of the dev process. They could end up legally compelled to make refunds that they simply cannot pay. No sane dev team would accept that risk.

 There has to be a mechanism inplaced to force accountability, otherwise it will just be a free for all for people looking to rip off the public.

There is! The complainant here actually quoted one. The biggest difference is that the KS project in question made no attempt to create the product at all, they just took the money and run. You just said that neither you, nor me, know enough about the legalities behind it to comment, but you're making the assumption that CIG, or others, aren't accountable. Again, I'm not sure what the moral compass is that is being used to judge projects, but I haven't really been a part of any crowdfunded project which seems to measure up to the standards being thrown around. 

Vrika

SpottyGekko said:

If we go with the "pledge = legal purchase" idea, then Kickstarter-funded games are doomed.

How many people would really pledge if there was no tangible benefit attached whatever ? 
How many KS "backers" are giving money purely out of altruism ?

A KS-funded project would have to be able to guarantee full refunds to everyone at any point. That is logically impossible, because the KS funds are burnt as part of the dev process. They could end up legally compelled to make refunds that they simply cannot pay. No sane dev team would accept that risk.

No, every sane dev team accepts that risk.

They set up a company to handle the project. If the project fails, the company goes bankrupt, and their losses are limited to whatever own money they invested into that company.