Charge Back and Refunds

Kothoses

CrazKanuk said:

This isn't a CIG tactic. I worked for a SAAS eCommerce provider for over 5 years and I can tell you that people who chronically purchase and return items can actually have their credit card revoked. Similarly, merchants running a higher than normal chargeback rate can have their abilities to accept those cards revoked. 

So to be accurate in your statements:
A) Companies CAN contest chargebacks, but it's a question of worth. Also, as a customer, you could be taken to small claims court if the company really wants to fight for their money, but I'd say that's not likely. 

You would have a very difficult time with your definition of "as promised" since all that's every been given are estimates. You cannot say whether the product has been delivered as promised. Also, you probably agreed to TOS when you purchased, so if the chargeback rate starts to exceed 1 or 2% and they wanted to look like real aholes they could probably fight it. 

C) Just to be clear, a refund is NOT what a chargeback was designed to do. Has it become a popular way to leverage a refund? Yes. However, the expressed purpose is for fraudulent or disputed charges. So, once again, yes, if you believe that a chargeback == a refund then your credit card will soon cease to function. 

I have worked for a couple of companies where I have been involved in the processing of accounts where chargebacks were filed.

The amount of people who think its just a "Refund" Button is alarming.  A chargeback is meant to be a last ditch way to recover money taken fraudulently from your account.   People do not seem to realise that filing chargebacks can and often does affect your own credit rating too, as it is flagged by the bank as "This person potentially can not be trusted with a line of credit" if you file too many, the bank decide that you are not able to keep your card secure and for your "Own protection" will revoke it.

While I always encourage people to use the system in the way its intended, be very careful about using it to recover from buyers regret.

GeezerGamer

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

As I said........"In the future"

We will see if their practices pay off or not.

Turrican187

Kothoses said:
[...]People do not seem to realise that filing chargebacks can and often does affect your own credit rating too, as it is flagged by the bank as "This person potentially can not be trusted with a line of credit" if you file too many, the bank decide that you are not able to keep your card secure and for your "Own protection" will revoke it.[...]

Yes I can agree with this from my time when I worked in Korea.

JohnP0100

The ‘charge back scare tactic’ is something CIG uses to deter people from using it and that is because it is a scary process for CIG.
Actual definition is ‘customer protection process’.
It is designed to protect YOU and not CIG, hence why CIG don't want you to use it.

Filing one charge back and have that affect your credit rating is nothing more than a scare tactic as that cannot happen.
If you do a charge back every week,  yes,  your bank will go 'hey. What is going on?'
But if you have never (or very rarely) done one, it will not apply to you. Think about it.

Also, if you are concerned, ask your bank rather than trust a bunch of internet posters. Remember it is in your banks interest to have you as a 'good' (credit rating or otherwise) loyal customer.

Distopia

Octagon7711 said:

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?  

Going well or not, if they give everyone their money back they won't be going anywhere forward that's for sure.

GeezerGamer

It's a balance between saying "no" and hoping those who request a refund accept the given answer vs. potential lost revenue due to "questionable" practices and people making a stink.

SEANMCAD

Distopia said:

Octagon7711 said:

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?  

Going well or not, if they give everyone their money back they won't be going anywhere forward that's for sure.

stop it that is like sexy talk to a SC critic

Distopia

GeezerGamer said:

It's a balance between saying "no" and hoping those who request a refund accept the given answer vs. potential lost revenue due to "questionable" practices and people making a stink.

It's also a balance between what's fair to the company as well as what's fair to the consumer, which gets rather murky when it comes to crowdfunding. Everything about this is different compared to making a typical game purchase. You're providing the funds to make the game; as well as form the company who will make it in many cases.

Considering that, protections would be different I would assume if it did come down to legislature. As it's more or less a promise between two parties Party A provides the funds, Party B Builds the product. If either back out it undermines the other. Tricky subject when you get right down to it.

JohnP0100

Distopia said:

Considering that, protections would be different I would assume if it did come down to legislature. As it's more or less a promise between two parties Party A provides the funds, Party B Builds the product. If either back out it undermines the other. Tricky subject when you get right down to it.

I'd be surprized if it is different as most legislature have rules around 'funding'.
If i as a customer / backer go into this with a promise of product A on Y date and the company declares they are breaking both, i can back out.

Once again the company in question has said so publicly, check the OP for proof.

BeansnBread

Distopia said:

GeezerGamer said:

It's a balance between saying "no" and hoping those who request a refund accept the given answer vs. potential lost revenue due to "questionable" practices and people making a stink.

It's also a balance between what's fair to the company as well as what's fair to the consumer, which gets rather murky when it comes to crowdfunding. Everything about this is different compared to making a typical game purchase. You're providing the funds to make the game; as well as form the company who will make it in many cases.

Considering that, protections would be different I would assume if it did come down to legislature. As it's more or less a promise between two parties Party A provides the funds, Party B Builds the product. If either back out it undermines the other. Tricky subject when you get right down to it.

It's not tricky. It happens all the time. Let's say you contract a catering service for a wedding. Let's say you pay them $2000. Let's say they make all the food and hire all of the people and spend a ton of cash to cater your wedding. Now let's say say they show up a day late. Whether or not they intentionally missed the date, they would be liable for the $2000.

When video games and Kickstarter are concerned, there should be a different standard not for the consumer, but for the developer. If they say there is going to be a certain product released on a certain date, they need to deliver. If not, the consumer is already protected and can get their money back. One way is through chargebacks, another is through civil court. The problem isn't that the consumer is taking advantage of the developer, the problem is that the developer is taking advantage of the consumer.

And yes, it is a big problem for a company if they change their product and release date after they have accepted funds and promised to deliver. If everyone decided it made them upset, then the company would be in huge trouble. Somewhat like if a company is mismanaged badly, stock drops rapidly and capital dries up. You obviously think there should be an exception for game developers, but that exception doesn't exist and likely never will.

Distopia

BeansnBread said:

Distopia said:

GeezerGamer said:

It's a balance between saying "no" and hoping those who request a refund accept the given answer vs. potential lost revenue due to "questionable" practices and people making a stink.

It's also a balance between what's fair to the company as well as what's fair to the consumer, which gets rather murky when it comes to crowdfunding. Everything about this is different compared to making a typical game purchase. You're providing the funds to make the game; as well as form the company who will make it in many cases.

Considering that, protections would be different I would assume if it did come down to legislature. As it's more or less a promise between two parties Party A provides the funds, Party B Builds the product. If either back out it undermines the other. Tricky subject when you get right down to it.

It's not tricky. It happens all the time. Let's say you contract a catering service for a wedding. Let's say you pay them $2000. Let's say they make all the food and hire all of the people and spend a ton of cash to cater your wedding. Now let's say say they show up a day late. Whether or not they intentionally missed the date, they would be liable for the $2000.

When video games and Kickstarter are concerned, there should be a different standard not for the consumer, but for the developer. If they say there is going to be a certain product released on a certain date, they need to deliver. If not, the consumer is already protected and can get their money back. One way is through chargebacks, another is through civil court. The problem isn't that the consumer is taking advantage of the developer, the problem is that the developer is taking advantage of the consumer.

And yes, it is a big problem for a company if they change their product and release date after they have accepted funds and promised to deliver. If everyone decided it made them upset, then the company would be in huge trouble. Somewhat like if a company is mismanaged badly, stock drops rapidly and capital dries up. You obviously think there should be an exception for game developers, but that exception doesn't exist and likely never will.

I'm not looking at this in terms of game development rather all types of kickstarter & crowdfunding.. As you're not buying a product you're paying for one to be designed as well as built, sometimes even the foundation of a company (in cases like SC). That's a lot different than catering. Which has a set menu that doesn't change...

In these cases you're not buying a product or service as much you're investing in a pitch.... which in many industries can change from concept to final design. Some ideas may not work at all... Some ideas may be broadened, some may be shrunk, so on and so forth. All of this would have to be considered to offer fair legislation, if it came to that would it not? When you are ordering from a catering company everything is set in stone, they're not planning your event based on best guesses, projected time-lines, unproven concept, etc.... that's what you're paying for in most cases of crowdfunding. 

Brenics

The point you yourself said, is crowdfunding is an investment. Where I disagree is changing that agreement without asking every individual on if they wanted to stay aboard with this or that change. Then CR would of had to do this a number of times from the original KS. Which is exactly CR's main problem, he doesn't know how to make a game without adding, changing, making false statements on what he is going to do.

Also taking a poll like Erillion has said was done, is not the way a good company would go on major changes. Heck they just done a major change with SM and instead of telling and asking every backer, CR does a video saying how upset he is. Then proceeded to tell everyone SM was already in a concept mod they let players play.

Distopia

Brenics said:

The point you yourself said, is crowdfunding is an investment. Where I disagree is changing that agreement without asking every individual on if they wanted to stay aboard with this or that change. Then CR would of had to do this a number of times from the original KS. Which is exactly CR's main problem, he doesn't know how to make a game without adding, changing, making false statements on what he is going to do.

Also taking a poll like Erillion has said was done, is not the way a good company would go on major changes. Heck they just done a major change with SM and instead of telling and asking every backer, CR does a video saying how upset he is. Then proceeded to tell everyone SM was already in a concept mod they let players play.

Fair point, as the consumer should have some idea of when to expect things as well as what to expect (which can be provided through regular announcements), it should also be seen as bad form if a company can't seem to get a proper vision established in a timely manner, especially after the funds are in play. If things seem to be in perpetual flux, that's unfair to those you pitched to. I don't disagree with you on that at all. 

BeansnBread

Distopia said:

BeansnBread said:

Distopia said:

GeezerGamer said:

It's a balance between saying "no" and hoping those who request a refund accept the given answer vs. potential lost revenue due to "questionable" practices and people making a stink.

It's also a balance between what's fair to the company as well as what's fair to the consumer, which gets rather murky when it comes to crowdfunding. Everything about this is different compared to making a typical game purchase. You're providing the funds to make the game; as well as form the company who will make it in many cases.

Considering that, protections would be different I would assume if it did come down to legislature. As it's more or less a promise between two parties Party A provides the funds, Party B Builds the product. If either back out it undermines the other. Tricky subject when you get right down to it.

It's not tricky. It happens all the time. Let's say you contract a catering service for a wedding. Let's say you pay them $2000. Let's say they make all the food and hire all of the people and spend a ton of cash to cater your wedding. Now let's say say they show up a day late. Whether or not they intentionally missed the date, they would be liable for the $2000.

When video games and Kickstarter are concerned, there should be a different standard not for the consumer, but for the developer. If they say there is going to be a certain product released on a certain date, they need to deliver. If not, the consumer is already protected and can get their money back. One way is through chargebacks, another is through civil court. The problem isn't that the consumer is taking advantage of the developer, the problem is that the developer is taking advantage of the consumer.

And yes, it is a big problem for a company if they change their product and release date after they have accepted funds and promised to deliver. If everyone decided it made them upset, then the company would be in huge trouble. Somewhat like if a company is mismanaged badly, stock drops rapidly and capital dries up. You obviously think there should be an exception for game developers, but that exception doesn't exist and likely never will.

I'm not looking at this in terms of game development rather all types of kickstarter & crowdfunding.. As you're not buying a product you're paying for one to be designed as well as built, sometimes even the foundation of a company (in cases like SC). That's a lot different than catering. Which has a set menu that doesn't change...

In these cases you're not buying a product or service as much you're investing in a pitch.... which in many industries can change from concept to final design. Some ideas may not work at all... Some ideas may be broadened, some may be shrunk, so on and so forth. All of this would have to be considered to offer fair legislation, if it came to that would it not? When you are ordering from a catering company everything is set in stone, they're not planning your event based on best guesses, projected time-lines, unproven concept, etc.... that's what you're paying for in most cases of crowdfunding. 

You are buying a product. That's why they charge tax for the product. They are offering a product to be delivered at a future date.

Distopia

BeansnBread said:

Distopia said:

I'm not looking at this in terms of game development rather all types of kickstarter & crowdfunding.. As you're not buying a product you're paying for one to be designed as well as built, sometimes even the foundation of a company (in cases like SC). That's a lot different than catering. Which has a set menu that doesn't change...

In these cases you're not buying a product or service as much you're investing in a pitch.... which in many industries can change from concept to final design. Some ideas may not work at all... Some ideas may be broadened, some may be shrunk, so on and so forth. All of this would have to be considered to offer fair legislation, if it came to that would it not? When you are ordering from a catering company everything is set in stone, they're not planning your event based on best guesses, projected time-lines, unproven concept, etc.... that's what you're paying for in most cases of crowdfunding. 

You are buying a product. That's why they charge tax for the product. They are offering a product to be delivered at a future date.

Your response says you really didn't consider anything i said, yet if that's the way you see it fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. I guess we'll see if and when real legislative precedence happens in regard to crowdfunding....

BeansnBread

Distopia said:

BeansnBread said:

Distopia said:

I'm not looking at this in terms of game development rather all types of kickstarter & crowdfunding.. As you're not buying a product you're paying for one to be designed as well as built, sometimes even the foundation of a company (in cases like SC). That's a lot different than catering. Which has a set menu that doesn't change...

In these cases you're not buying a product or service as much you're investing in a pitch.... which in many industries can change from concept to final design. Some ideas may not work at all... Some ideas may be broadened, some may be shrunk, so on and so forth. All of this would have to be considered to offer fair legislation, if it came to that would it not? When you are ordering from a catering company everything is set in stone, they're not planning your event based on best guesses, projected time-lines, unproven concept, etc.... that's what you're paying for in most cases of crowdfunding. 

You are buying a product. That's why they charge tax for the product. They are offering a product to be delivered at a future date.

Your response says you really didn't consider anything i said, yet if that's the way you see it fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. I guess we'll see if and when real legislative precedence happens in regard to crowdfunding....

I read that you changed your viewpoint. You changed from harping on about whether something was illegal, to consumers getting chargebacks being fair. Every time someone calls you out on something, you just say that you weren't arguing the point and then change the subject.

I don't know how to tell you this, but in business, when someone tells you they can give you this for that and they don't give you this, then they are liable for that. The onus is on the developers making the claim that they can deliver.

When a large game publisher gets estimates about completion from a development house, they expect that development house to stick to it. Depending on the publisher, there are various level of leniency. But that leniency is completely subjective. They can and do all the time, pull the plug on game projects that they feel are not meeting their standards or deadlines. And so, some developers fail based on getting a proper product out in a timely manner.

Failing is a large part of business in general. You are framing this as if CIG has some inalienable right to survive. They don't. If enough people pull out their funding because people are not receiving their agreed upon product at the agreed upon time, then they have every right to.

Your opinion that there needs to be new laws is fine. But the current laws work perfectly fine for "Kickstarter in general." You do realize that almost $100 million was given to them through their own sites channels, right?

Distopia

BeansnBread said:

Distopia said:

BeansnBread said:

Distopia said:

I'm not looking at this in terms of game development rather all types of kickstarter & crowdfunding.. As you're not buying a product you're paying for one to be designed as well as built, sometimes even the foundation of a company (in cases like SC). That's a lot different than catering. Which has a set menu that doesn't change...

In these cases you're not buying a product or service as much you're investing in a pitch.... which in many industries can change from concept to final design. Some ideas may not work at all... Some ideas may be broadened, some may be shrunk, so on and so forth. All of this would have to be considered to offer fair legislation, if it came to that would it not? When you are ordering from a catering company everything is set in stone, they're not planning your event based on best guesses, projected time-lines, unproven concept, etc.... that's what you're paying for in most cases of crowdfunding. 

You are buying a product. That's why they charge tax for the product. They are offering a product to be delivered at a future date.

Your response says you really didn't consider anything i said, yet if that's the way you see it fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. I guess we'll see if and when real legislative precedence happens in regard to crowdfunding....

I read that you changed your viewpoint. You changed from harping on about whether something was illegal, to consumers getting chargebacks being fair. Every time someone calls you out on something, you just say that you weren't arguing the point and then change the subject.

I don't know how to tell you this, but in business, when someone tells you they can give you this for that and they don't give you this, then they are liable for that. The onus is on the developers making the claim that they can deliver.

When a large game publisher gets estimates about completion from a development house, they expect that development house to stick to it. Depending on the publisher, there are various level of leniency. But that leniency is completely subjective. They can and do all the time, pull the plug on game projects that they feel are not meeting their standards or deadlines. And so, some developers fail based on getting a proper product out in a timely manner.

Failing is a large part of business in general. You are framing this as if CIG has some inalienable right to survive. They don't. If enough people pull out their funding because people are not receiving their agreed upon product at the agreed upon time, then they have every right to.

Your opinion that there needs to be new laws is fine. But the current laws work perfectly fine for "Kickstarter in general." You do realize that almost $100 was given to them through their own sites channels, right?

I was responding to John (to which I said I didn't agree people are victims), then geezer about the balance between devs and consumer rights in regard to crowdfunding. how is that changing my view point? Their points were completely different subjects, you just keep jumping in the middle, yet wonder why it's two different discussions?

As for the rest...You realize there is quite often huge differences between concept and reality right?

By the way the point you're replying to was a side thought in reply to Geezer, I was thinking about crowdfunding in general, not just SC.

BeansnBread

Distopia said:

I was responding to John, then geezer about two different things how is that changing my view point? Their points were completely different subjects, you just keep jumping in the middle, yet wonder why it's two different discussions?

As for the rest...You realize there is quite often huge differences between concept and reality right?

By the way the point you're replying to was a side thought in reply to Geezer, I was thinking about crowdfunding in general, not just SC.

If all they were charging for was a concept, then they shouldn't put real dates and values on that concept. See, people actually DO pay money for concepts. For instance, young architects get paid money for sketches of building concepts, but they often don't get paid for the finished product.

It might be you that is confused about the difference between a concept and reality. Actually, this probably really does get to the heart of it. People that paid for Star Citizen weren't buying a concept, they were buying a product to be delivered by a certain time. There were specific expectations because there were specific promises made to the purchaser (I wonder how long it will take them to meet all their stretch goals). I think CIG finally figured this out because they've said they are no longer going to say anything abut future release dates.

Distopia

BeansnBread said:

If all they were charging for was a concept, then they shouldn't put real dates and values on that concept. See, people actually DO pay money for concepts. For instance, young architects get paid money for sketches of building concepts, but they often don't get paid for the finished product.

It might be you that is confused about the difference between a concept and reality. Actually, this probably really does get to the heart of it. People that paid for Star Citizen weren't buying a concept, they were buying a product to be delivered by a certain time. There were specific expectations because there were specific promises made to the purchaser (I wonder how long it will take them to meet all their stretch goals). I think CIG finally figured this out because they've said they are no longer going to say anything abut future release dates.

I don't disagree that giving solid dates is bad form, I'd just point out that I wouldn't view such dates as anything more than guesses and projections. They rarely take possible delays into account when doing so, we see that all of the time in the regular software market. 

My point is simply this, where legislation is concerned it typically tries to strike a balance between what's best for both parties in a consumer/provider relationship.

There are differences between buying a game and investing in one. How legislature would approach that I have no real idea, but the protections would have to be slightly different I'd assume on both sides. As a game concept is rarely the same as it becomes an actual product. Features get scrapped, replaced or anything in between the two... SO that concept they bought in the beginning could be totally different by the time they actually see it. This is why I said it's tricky on how exactly you enforce such a balance. 

BeansnBread

Distopia said:

BeansnBread said:

If all they were charging for was a concept, then they shouldn't put real dates and values on that concept. See, people actually DO pay money for concepts. For instance, young architects get paid money for sketches of building concepts, but they often don't get paid for the finished product.

It might be you that is confused about the difference between a concept and reality. Actually, this probably really does get to the heart of it. People that paid for Star Citizen weren't buying a concept, they were buying a product to be delivered by a certain time. There were specific expectations because there were specific promises made to the purchaser (I wonder how long it will take them to meet all their stretch goals). I think CIG finally figured this out because they've said they are no longer going to say anything abut future release dates.

I don't disagree that giving solid dates is bad form, I'd just point out that I wouldn't view such dates as anything more than guesses and projections. They rarely take possible delays into account when doing so, we see that all of the time in the regular software market. 

My point is simply this, where legislation is concerned it typically tries to strike a balance between what's best for both parties in a consumer/provider relationship.

There are differences between buying a game and investing in one. How legislature would approach that I have no real idea, but the protections would have to be slightly different I'd assume on both sides. As a game concept is rarely the same as it becomes an actual product. Features get scrapped, replaced or anything in between the two... SO that concept they bought in the beginning could be totally different by the time they actually see it. This is why I said it's tricky on how exactly you enforce such a balance. 

And if things that were promised get scrapped and replaced, then the consumer has the right to pull out. The problem here, even according to you, is that the developers are not able to keep their promises. The laws are already there. The problem here isn't that it is impossible to make a game according to plan and on time. The problem is that they are gathering boatloads of money based on promises they can't keep. That is anti-consumer in the worst possible way.

It is the developer's fault and it all could have been avoided had the developers been more realistic with expectations. It's not ok if the product completely changes during development. It is not ok for their "concept" to change from what was promised. Some people will be accepting of the change, but those that are not, should be compensated.

Distopia

BeansnBread said:

And if things that were promised get scrapped and replaced, then the consumer has the right to pull out. The problem here, even according to you, is that the developers are not able to keep their promises. The laws are already there. The problem here isn't that it is impossible to make a game according to plan and on time. The problem is that they are gathering boatloads of money based on promises they can't keep. That is anti-consumer in the worst possible way.

It is the developer's fault and it all could have been avoided had the developers been more realistic with expectations. It's not ok if the product completely changes during development. It is not ok for their "concept" to change from what was promised. Some people will be accepting of the change, but those that are not, should be compensated.

I don't disagree. as that is the real problem with it on all fronts. Selling concepts rather than products. There are so many stipulations involved, even in the best case scenarios ideas can get left behind, which means someone will get burned. There are too many what ifs and possibilities, to really guarantee a concept will actually work in a live environment. All a Dev team can really do is try their best to get what they envisioned into a working cohesive gaming experience. 

How do you promise a concept or prototype? That is the real question, and something that should be considered when anyone is going into such dealings. It begs the question could such a practice survive under true supervision as well as disclosure (at least on such a scale as SC)? As what works on paper doesn't always pan out in practice, when you have a lot of unproven concepts, there's a lot that can quite simply go wrong.  

Distopia

I just wonder how this works in the world of true investment, are there penalties to pulling out early? I'd think there would be something in place to protect against that, as it can hurt all others involved if it happens. I'd figure at the very least there would have to be sound reason and it can't just happen on a whim.

rodarin

Distopia said:

I just wonder how this works in the world of true investment, are there penalties to pulling out early? I'd think there would be something in place to protect against that, as it can hurt all others involved if it happens. I'd figure at the very least there would have to be sound reason and it can't just happen on a whim.

Sound reason might be that they said they could make the game for 20 million, then when they realized how stupid peopel were and were willing to 'donate' 5 or 6 times that much (and growing) it has now become what it is. 

Irony is they were much more likely to deliver a better game for 20 million than they will for the 200 or whatever million this thing ends up collecting.

sacase

There are some real pathetic people in this thread. They knew dang good and well what they were getting into before they pledged their money. Personally, I pledged my money enough to get the free game back in 2014. It will be done when its done, until them, I have a lot of other gaming and studying to do. I check in once a month to see how things are going and they are looking good. 

JohnP0100

Original KS link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description
Sorry that the people here can't read into the future and trusted a company to deliver what was promised.

I mean, if these people just can read the future this wouldn't have happened! /sarcasm