Charge Back and Refunds

JohnP0100

Distopia said:

JohnP0100 said:

CIG publicly declares they will not make what they said they would in the Kickstarter.
"Backer's foresight were poor and the customers who pledged to this are not victims of fraud'  - Distopia 2016

I mean, why don't backers just read the future to avoid situation like this? Oh wait....

You know there is a difference between bad management and committing fraud right?

From a customer point of view, doesn't matter what you call it.
Just stop blaming the customers when the company outright decides to make something else and people want out.

Cause obviously the customers should have just read the future. Right?  /sarcasm

adamlotus75

It's almost like some of the responses are 'well aren't you a sucker then for backing this? I backed it and I'm quite happy being a sucker for a good few years yet!'

Bizarre.

Daderick

Did they say how long it takes to get another buy back token?

JohnP0100

Daderick said:

Did they say how long it takes to get another buy back token?

Every 3months i think.

Kefo

JohnP0100 said:

Daderick said:

Did they say how long it takes to get another buy back token?

Every 3months i think.

and I think you cant save the tokens from quarter to quarter

JohnP0100

This thread is the 5th link on Page 1 of Google "Star Citizen Charge Back" (holly molly!) and I've been asked to provide reference material for people to include if their bank wants more evidence.

I've updated the OP with that information and copy-pasted it to the below.
Use all / some / none for whatever you wish as it is all from CIG or CIG staff so there shouldn't be any issues on whether the evidence is good or not.



Charge Back Reference Material
1. The first thing would be your correspondence email with CIG when you asked for a refund. If there are threatening words by CIG in there, highlight them cause banks generally don't like their customers being threatened.

2. What is in the PU is not enough 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__BVG8bx-e0&feature=youtu.be&t=36m&ab_channel=ImperialNewsNetwork 
"It is not what most company would consider Alpha" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAE9co2LJq8&feature=youtu.be&t=2310&ab_channel=StarCitizen
Q: "Can you name a feature in the PU that is actually finished?" A: "No" / "Nothing is finished" 

3. According to Chris Roberts, 'really upset' is a valid reason to get a refund and they have refunded 1200 backers.
http://massivelyop.com/2015/08/22/star-citizen-has-refunded-over-1200-backers/

4. Additional scope will not delay the project delivery date of Nov - 2014 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description)
Ex1.https://web.archive.org/web/20121103204818/http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/star-citizen-faq/

Ex2. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12734-Draft-FAQ
The purpose of the higher stretch goals is to ensure that the game-as-described is finished in the two year time period. 

This turned into

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14839-Letter-From-The-Chairman
Will it take longer to deliver all this? Of course! When the scope changes, the amount of time it will take to deliver all the features naturally increases.

5. TOS changes
https://web.archive.org/web/2015022...ustries.com/tos
https://web.archive.org/web/2013092...ustries.com/tos
https://web.archive.org/web/2013081...ustries.com/tos
https://web.archive.org/web/2012091...tries.com/terms


6. Various features are now in question or gone
Original KS link https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description

a. Oculus Rift support for SC / SQ42 -> http://www.twitch.tv/cigcommunity/v/38006332  - "I can't answer that" 
b. Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play) -> http://massivelyop.com/2015/07/31/co-op-missions-yanked-from-star-citizens-squadron-42/
c. Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU) -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaoGxOxzAwc&feature=youtu.be&t=1h50m50s&ab_channel=geekdomo - "We will be live and in operation for some time before anybody even looks at private servers."

BeansnBread

Distopia said:

BeansnBread said:

Nice opinion, haven't really found what exactly CIG did that would be officially stamped as illegal with solid proof to back it up.

So far people just throwing opinions around trying to state them as facts is all we've been seeing.

But carry on.

Exactly, there was nothing illegal and being a victim doesn't require a crime.

You do realize that's exactly what the OP was trying to argue has happened? 

No, he isn't.

Distopia

BeansnBread said:

Distopia said:

BeansnBread said:

Nice opinion, haven't really found what exactly CIG did that would be officially stamped as illegal with solid proof to back it up.

So far people just throwing opinions around trying to state them as facts is all we've been seeing.

But carry on.

Exactly, there was nothing illegal and being a victim doesn't require a crime.

You do realize that's exactly what the OP was trying to argue has happened? 

No, he isn't.

Then why the heck would he write this? "Backer's foresight were poor and the customers who pledged to this are not victims of fraud'  - Distopia 2016

Last time I checked a company committing fraud to entice sales is a crime...

Distopia

JohnP0100 said:

Distopia said:

JohnP0100 said:

CIG publicly declares they will not make what they said they would in the Kickstarter.
"Backer's foresight were poor and the customers who pledged to this are not victims of fraud'  - Distopia 2016

I mean, why don't backers just read the future to avoid situation like this? Oh wait....

You know there is a difference between bad management and committing fraud right?

From a customer point of view, doesn't matter what you call it.
Just stop blaming the customers when the company outright decides to make something else and people want out.

Cause obviously the customers should have just read the future. Right?  /sarcasm

I am not blaming people for wanting out, that is your decision to make as a consumer. It's why charge-backs exist is it not? I just have a problem with calling them victims... to me it's like calling someone who purposefully shoots themselves in the foot a victim, or more on point calling an investor a victim when their investment doesn't pan out as envisioned. 

BeansnBread

Distopia said:

BeansnBread said:

Distopia said:

BeansnBread said:

Nice opinion, haven't really found what exactly CIG did that would be officially stamped as illegal with solid proof to back it up.

So far people just throwing opinions around trying to state them as facts is all we've been seeing.

But carry on.

Exactly, there was nothing illegal and being a victim doesn't require a crime.

You do realize that's exactly what the OP was trying to argue has happened? 

No, he isn't.

Then why the heck would he write this? "Backer's foresight were poor and the customers who pledged to this are not victims of fraud'  - Distopia 2016

Last time I checked a company committing fraud to entice sales is a crime...

He is arguing that chargebacks for this game are valid, not that what CIG did is illegal. He uses the word fraud a few times, which requires a WILLFUL misrepresentation, and so he really has no legs to stand on with the actual crime of fraud.

And being a victim doesn't require a crime. I personally agree with him that if a product is not delivered for an agreed upon amount in a timely manner, then a person should be able to be compensated for that. Otherwise, companies could never deliver a product and always call it late. That is why consumer protections like chargebacks and civil court exist.

Distopia

BeansnBread said:

Distopia said:

BeansnBread said:

Distopia said:

BeansnBread said:

Nice opinion, haven't really found what exactly CIG did that would be officially stamped as illegal with solid proof to back it up.

So far people just throwing opinions around trying to state them as facts is all we've been seeing.

But carry on.

Exactly, there was nothing illegal and being a victim doesn't require a crime.

You do realize that's exactly what the OP was trying to argue has happened? 

No, he isn't.

Then why the heck would he write this? "Backer's foresight were poor and the customers who pledged to this are not victims of fraud'  - Distopia 2016

Last time I checked a company committing fraud to entice sales is a crime...

He is arguing that chargebacks for this game are valid, not that what CIG did is illegal. He uses the word fraud a few times, which requires a WILLFUL misrepresentation, and so he really has no legs to stand on with the actual crime of fraud.

And being a victim doesn't require a crime. I personally agree with him that if a product is not delivered for an agreed upon amount in a timely manner, then a person should be able to be compensated for that. Otherwise, companies could never deliver a product and always call it late. That is why consumer protections like chargebacks and civil court exist.

I'm not arguing against that, like I said I just don't view them as victims. 

Brenics

I see them as victims as soon as CR denied refunds and had his attack dogs start tearing these people apart and banned from forums. But then that's just me. 

Once CR changed the game in his head he created the victims. 

Distopia

Brenics said:

I see them as victims as soon as CR denied refunds and had his attack dogs start tearing these people apart and banned from forums. But then that's just me. 

Once CR changed the game in his head he created the victims. 

Which is your right to see it that way, when I see that claim I just feel that person really wasn't thinking about the nature of the investment they were taking part in. It's a huge risk that shouldn't be taken so lightly as to think you're simply pre-ordering a game. 

Brenics

Distopia said:

Brenics said:

I see them as victims as soon as CR denied refunds and had his attack dogs start tearing these people apart and banned from forums. But then that's just me. 

Once CR changed the game in his head he created the victims. 

Which is your right to see it that way, when I see that claim I just feel that person really wasn't thinking about the nature of the investment they were taking part in. It's a huge risk that shouldn't be taken so lightly as to think you're simply pre-ordering a game. 

Yet how can you preorder a game that keeps changing everytime CR turns over in his sleep. 

Distopia

Brenics said:

Distopia said:

Brenics said:

I see them as victims as soon as CR denied refunds and had his attack dogs start tearing these people apart and banned from forums. But then that's just me. 

Once CR changed the game in his head he created the victims. 

Which is your right to see it that way, when I see that claim I just feel that person really wasn't thinking about the nature of the investment they were taking part in. It's a huge risk that shouldn't be taken so lightly as to think you're simply pre-ordering a game. 

Yet how can you preorder a game that keeps changing everytime CR turns over in his sleep. 

I find your response weird, as I said it's not simply pre-ordering a game..

Brenics

Distopia said:

Brenics said:

Distopia said:

Brenics said:

I see them as victims as soon as CR denied refunds and had his attack dogs start tearing these people apart and banned from forums. But then that's just me. 

Once CR changed the game in his head he created the victims. 

Which is your right to see it that way, when I see that claim I just feel that person really wasn't thinking about the nature of the investment they were taking part in. It's a huge risk that shouldn't be taken so lightly as to think you're simply pre-ordering a game. 

Yet how can you preorder a game that keeps changing everytime CR turns over in his sleep. 

I find your response weird, as I said it's not simply pre-ordering a game..

You said>It's a huge risk that shouldn't be taken so lightly as to think you're simply pre-ordering a game.<
 
You're right it is attempting to buy something in Perpetual Flux. 

Distopia

Brenics said:

Distopia said:

Brenics said:

Distopia said:

Brenics said:

I see them as victims as soon as CR denied refunds and had his attack dogs start tearing these people apart and banned from forums. But then that's just me. 

Once CR changed the game in his head he created the victims. 

Which is your right to see it that way, when I see that claim I just feel that person really wasn't thinking about the nature of the investment they were taking part in. It's a huge risk that shouldn't be taken so lightly as to think you're simply pre-ordering a game. 

Yet how can you preorder a game that keeps changing everytime CR turns over in his sleep. 

I find your response weird, as I said it's not simply pre-ordering a game..

You said>It's a huge risk that shouldn't be taken so lightly as to think you're simply pre-ordering a game.<
 
You're right it is attempting to buy something in Perpetual Flux. 

My bad then.

GeezerGamer

IF CIG were smart, they would just issue refunds. I really don't understand this. Practices like this will create doubt. And right now, this kind of doubt will kill CIG's revenue. They really are biting the hand that feeds them.

Brenics

I agree they should but the problem is they are running the company monthly now. As long as 3m+ a month comes in they are in biz. But I expect it is winding down and soon the floor is going to drop out. Time is the killer of all!

Erillion

GeezerGamer said:

 this kind of doubt will kill CIG's revenue.

I do not see any signs of "killed revenue". CIG is about to hit 108 million shortly. Monthly income in the last months was always clearly higher then the typical burn rate (estimated currently at 2.6 M$/month  by many different posters), sometimes twice as high.


Have fun

Distopia

GeezerGamer said:

IF CIG were smart, they would just issue refunds. I really don't understand this. Practices like this will create doubt. And right now, this kind of doubt will kill CIG's revenue. They really are biting the hand that feeds them.

I think this more than anything else is a difficult subject for crowd-funded games/products, how much of that money can they really afford to give back before it starts to effect them? This is an area I feel consumers might lose in, in regard to Crowdfunding. As Laws are just as important in protecting businesses as they are in protecting consumer rights. IF too many ask for their money back that hurts everyone else involved, from consumer to employee.

MrSnuffles

Talonsin said:

Erillion said:

Compare with estimated current monthly burn rate of around 2.6 M$. 

Where did you get that figure from?  CIG has not put out any finance numbers that I know of.  Are you using information from Derek Smarts blog? 

Could you please link the source of that 2.6 number?  Thanks.

Roberts said so himself in a Polygon Interview. This is common knowledge and has been cited a lot of times. Here is the quote and the Link (about half way down the article below a portrait of CR).

Roberts scoffs at the notion that the company will run out of money before the final game is delivered. "It's not going to happen. We keep a pretty healthy cash reserve. We managed our expenses based on the revenue we bring in. We have our development timeline and we know what we're doing. We adjust. If I'm not bringing in $3 million or $2 million a month, we aren't going to have as many people working on it. - Source: Polygon Article

This is also very controversial as he basically admits that if they do not bring in $2-3 million a month they have to scale down. Which does not sound like they have a lot of money left.

Have faith!

GeezerGamer

Erillion said:

GeezerGamer said:

 this kind of doubt will kill CIG's revenue.

I do not see any signs of "killed revenue". CIG is about to hit 108 million shortly. Monthly income in the last months was always clearly higher then the typical burn rate (estimated currently at 2.6 M$/month  by many different posters), sometimes twice as high.


Have fun

I am talking about their ability to inspire potential customers in the future. peeing in their "backer's" Corn Flakes is not a good way to go. It doesn't matter what the legal postion is. It's bad publicity.

Erillion

GeezerGamer said:

I am talking about their ability to inspire potential customers in the future. peeing in their "backer's" Corn Flakes is not a good way to go. It doesn't matter what the legal postion is. It's bad publicity.

If its bad publicity, those who are supposed to be frightened by it do not seem to hear it.

Seems like they still keep joining the project by the tenthousands, taking no heed to those reports.


Have fun

Octagon7711

Erillion said:

GeezerGamer said:

I am talking about their ability to inspire potential customers in the future. peeing in their "backer's" Corn Flakes is not a good way to go. It doesn't matter what the legal postion is. It's bad publicity.

If its bad publicity, those who are supposed to be frightened by it do not seem to hear it.

Seems like they still keep joining the project by the tenthousands, taking no heed to those reports.


Have fun

If things are going so well, why denied refunds?