You can have it both ways. Someone could simultaneously purchase a ship from them and be upset that their money isn't going towards the production of the game. People do it all the time in other MMOs (for example WoW) when they are upset about how their sub money gets spent.
No one buys this game. No one buys a space ship. When you give CIG money, you agree to the terms of service.
RSI is raising
funds for the Game. You may select one or more of the pledges offered on
the Website, or through RSI’s customer service, and pay the indicated
amount(s) in accordance with the following terms agreed between you and RSI:
Your payment (“Pledge”) is a deposit to be used for (a)
the production and delivery cost for the relevant pledge items (“Pledge
Item Cost”), and (b) the development and production cost of the Game,
including the costs of operating and hosting the Game, the Website and
the other RSI Services, and RSI’s corporate expenses associated with the foregoing (the “Game Cost”).
The Pledge shall be earned by RSI
and become non-refundable to the extent that it is used for the Pledge
Item Cost and/or the Game Cost, with your Pledge being applied as
follows: first to the Pledge Item Cost, and then on a pro rata pari
passu basis with all other contributors whose deposits have been
deducted by the relevant Pledge Item Cost, to the Game Cost.
RSI agrees
to use its good faith business efforts to deliver to you the pledge
items and the Game on or before the estimated delivery date communicated
to you on the Website. However, you acknowledge and agree that
delivery as of such date is not a firm promise and may be extended by RSI
since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production
time. Accordingly, you agree that any unearned portion of your Pledge
shall not be refundable until and unless RSI
has failed to deliver the relevant pledge items and/or the Game to you
within eighteen (18) months after the estimated delivery date.
For the avoidance of doubt, in consideration of RSI’s good
faith efforts to develop, produce, and deliver the Game with the funds
raised, you agree that any Pledge amounts applied against the Pledge
Item Cost and the Game Cost shall be non-refundable regardless of
whether or not RSI is able to complete and deliver the Game and/or the pledge items. In the unlikely event that RSI is not able to deliver the Game and/or the pledge items, RSI
agrees to post an audited cost accounting on the Website to fully
explain the use of the amounts paid for Pledge Item Cost and the Game
Cost. In consideration of the promises by RSI
hereunder, you agree that you shall irrevocably waive any claim for
refund of any Pledge that has been used for the Game Cost and Pledge
Item Cost in accordance with the above.
Once RSI has delivered all pledge items to you and the Game has been commercially released to the public, all your payments for any RSI Services until such time shall become, and any payments thereafter shall be, non-refundable in whole or in part.
You acknowledge and agree that the pledge items delivered to
you may differ in certain aspects from the description of those pledge
items that was available on the Website at the time of your Pledge.
For the avoidance of doubt, all payments for items delivered
immediately or soon after purchase, such as recurring website
subscriptions, alpha passes, or Merchandise (as defined in Sec. 9 below)
are not covered by this Section 7, but by Section 8 below.
The only thing you "purchase" is physical merchandise, if you want to look at IX. Notice the wording there, "purchase". I don't care what value added tax your country charges, as if it's some product being "sold". This is the agreement to which you consent when you give them money for a pledge account or any other digital "goods".
Bleh, I want to staple it on the subreddit, too, but I refuse to contribute to that shit show. People pop in all the time, "Guys! I just bought the game and I bought a spaceship!". No you didn't, dipshit. You didn't read the fine print.
Anyway, that Tos also says people give them money to be used to build the game, in good faith, not play Michaelangelo all over a fucking studio wall.
You can have it both ways. Someone could simultaneously purchase a ship from them and be upset that their money isn't going towards the production of the game. People do it all the time in other MMOs (for example WoW) when they are upset about how their sub money gets spent.
Anyway, that Tos also says people give them money to be used to build the game, in good faith, not play Michaelangelo all over a fucking studio wall.
How about creating virtual adds for virtual spaceships?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The people that were told that 100% of their money would get used to fund the game when they bought a ship certainly have a legitimate complaint.
I was referring to your statement about people saying that about WOW or anything else they buy from a company, none of that money has to be spent how the consumers see fit, that's not the way commerce works, a seller's profit is not beholden to any consumer .
If the company spends in a way that upsets its consumers, while they may not be held financially responsible by the law, the consumers can choose not to partake in the product. This ends up being potentially very destructive for the company. I'm actually surprised that you are trying to take a position that consumers have zero power in the company/consumer relationship.
And in the case of WoW, a lot of people think that is actually a potential major cause of losing so many subs.
RSI is raising
funds for the Game. You may select one or more of the pledges offered on
the Website, or through RSI’s customer service, and pay the indicated
amount(s) in accordance with the following terms agreed between you and RSI:
Your payment (“Pledge”) is a deposit to be used for (a)
the production and delivery cost for the relevant pledge items (“Pledge
Item Cost”), and (b) the development and production cost of the Game,
including the costs of operating and hosting the Game, the Website and
the other RSI Services, and RSI’s corporate expenses associated with the foregoing (the “Game Cost”).
Yet when I tried pointing this out in past conversations, no one wanted to hear it, thats' the having it both ways part.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
A mural that size would be in the £400 - £1000 price range, maybe slightly more for the high render. Having a custom print of 550 cm by 310cm (18 ft by 13 ft) costs around £450. Any person with an average job can pay for that.
Talk about spreading misinformation and grasping at straws, and it seems DS has involved himself again by helping out with the smear.
Really? Can you link me to where that is true? I got mine from here, http://www.morganmurals.com/pricing so i would like to see where you can have it done cheaper!
@Brenics, please bother clicking the link and go to that page, instead of taking Smart's word for it. See for yourself, that page is for a hired artist named Morgan Bricca, out of California that Hand Paints the walls for 5 hours a day. Not simply getting it digitally printed like they did at CIG. Here's an example of the cost of a digital print. .
Seriously folks, I don't want to seem like I'm being mean when I say this, but Derek is just a jealous old fool. He will twist and turn anything to try and fit his narrative, and he panders to the attitudes of people who are angry at a genre they feel scorned by, for many different reasons. He uses them for attention, he wants to be relevant. If he bothered to make a decent working game though, he would be relevant without his charade.
We've had enough evidence of his jealous anger towards SC fans, when he comes in and bombards threads like Beetlejuice. That's all the evidence anyone should need to know he's full of it.
I hate saying it this way. :-D You Realizer as soon as you used DS and the comment you made took all you said before as BS.
But if you say that about DS and really believe it, why can't you logicly use that same thought process to CR. Because 99% of what I hear CR say can also be said is BS. Not like the facts aren't there even more for Robert's of being a bad developer and even worse liar. That has been documented way back in his Origin days to present. Also the way he is running CIG proves the past even more.
So really if you want to attack DS which is fine (he can take care of himself) why not at least tell the truth about Robert's (clearly he needs you guys to stick up for him).
Yet when I tried pointing this out in past conversations, no one wanted to hear it, thats' the having it both ways part.
I am not justifying a 15k mural in fact I personally think that is a waste. I think virtual adds for virtual space ships is pushing the limit and doing it for over a year is in fact pushing the limit.
HOWEVER...
the bottom line here is that: 1. we are not the managers of the project 2. not everyone universally agrees on how projects should be managed and what is a worthy cost and what is not a worthy cost. 2a. every AAA game developer ever has a large mural in the lobby 3. if you start getting into 'crowd micromanagement' my hunch is many projects will fail all over the place, however, if you told me about Kickstarter 10 years ago I would say that would fail to so not sure. maybe that is what you should start a kickstarter version of 'crowd micro-management'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The people that were told that 100% of their money would get used to fund the game when they bought a ship certainly have a legitimate complaint.
I was referring to your statement about people saying that about WOW or anything else they buy from a company, none of that money has to be spent how the consumers see fit, that's not the way commerce works, a seller's profit is not beholden to any consumer .
If the company spends in a way that upsets its consumers, while they may not be held financially responsible by the law, the consumers can choose not to partake in the product. This ends up being potentially very destructive for the company. I'm actually surprised that you are trying to take a position that consumers have zero power in the company/consumer relationship.
And in the case of WoW, a lot of people think that is actually a potential major cause of losing so many subs.
I'm sure you can see yourself there's a huge difference between using money from sales as you wish, and using money from pledges as you wish..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I see no problem using backer money to pay for a building a few desks/computers/chairs to make the game. For paying wages is also fine, but I do believe crowdfunding/KS needs to have laws revised so they have to show where every penny is going. Right now one thing Roberts has done is created a scheme where only a few people know exactly where the money is going.
1. Does he really need as many companies to make this game?
2. Has he set it up to where multiple people are getting multiple paychecks from these companies?
3. Could he spend a lot less money on decorating the places people work?
4. How many people actually work in the room with the mural he paid backer money with?
5. How much movie making products has he wasted money on for his and Sandi's personal projects?
6. If monthly subs only pay for the video they make is there any real oversight with that money?
7. Exactly what rights does Robert's say the backer's have?
Those are just a few questions that really need to be addressed and laws need to be made so people like Robert's does not scam backer's.
Clearly to me KS/crowdfunding has been hurt big time because of how Robert's have created this financial mess.
They show their offices on social media, and youtube, you aren't one of the "few" people on earth who understands things cost money, the difference is you're the only few that come here crying whenever you see it. Most of us who have given money to the game understand that we helped create a company, and a game. I don't really care what anyone else thinks about their share of the cost.
It doesn't matter in the long run, and guess what "Kickstarter laws" if they did exist could still be worked around, by the same concept they are doing now. They are allowing people to purchase ships as pledges via their own website, this bypasses any contract Kickstarter might have, because the money isn't going through Kickstarter, it's direct to party. Whatever laws are proposed can be worked around, that's the nature of the internet.
Which in the end, is why you are still beating a dead horse. It's dead already, we get it Roberts used Kickstarter to start a gaming empire. Well the good news for haters is, if the game sucks the empire falls. It doesn't need you shouting from the rooftops. If the game is bad, it will fail on it's own. Nothing anybody can do about that.
The people that were told that 100% of their money would get used to fund the game when they bought a ship certainly have a legitimate complaint.
I was referring to your statement about people saying that about WOW or anything else they buy from a company, none of that money has to be spent how the consumers see fit, that's not the way commerce works, a seller's profit is not beholden to any consumer .
If the company spends in a way that upsets its consumers, while they may not be held financially responsible by the law, the consumers can choose not to partake in the product. This ends up being potentially very destructive for the company. I'm actually surprised that you are trying to take a position that consumers have zero power in the company/consumer relationship.
And in the case of WoW, a lot of people think that is actually a potential major cause of losing so many subs.
I'm sure you can see yourself there's a huge difference between using money from sales as you wish, and using money from pledges as you wish..
pretty much every major successful game developer out there likely has a large mural in the lobby. It seems to me a requirement for a successfuly project. Can you explain in any real terms how it is not when the evidence seems to suggest otherwise?
see...? this is why crowd micro-management is dangerous. How do you know what is and is not good for development project? even more so when what you suggest is inappropriate is the same thing succesful companies do?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The people that were told that 100% of their money would get used to fund the game when they bought a ship certainly have a legitimate complaint.
I was referring to your statement about people saying that about WOW or anything else they buy from a company, none of that money has to be spent how the consumers see fit, that's not the way commerce works, a seller's profit is not beholden to any consumer .
If the company spends in a way that upsets its consumers, while they may not be held financially responsible by the law, the consumers can choose not to partake in the product. This ends up being potentially very destructive for the company. I'm actually surprised that you are trying to take a position that consumers have zero power in the company/consumer relationship.
And in the case of WoW, a lot of people think that is actually a potential major cause of losing so many subs.
I'm sure you can see yourself there's a huge difference between using money from sales as you wish, and using money from pledges as you wish..
pretty much every major successful game developer out there likely has a large mural in the lobby. It seems to me a requirement for a successfuly project. Can you explain in any real terms how it is not when the evidence seems to suggest otherwise?
see...? this is why crowd micro-management is dangerous. How do you know what is and is not good for development project? even more so when what you consider inappropriate is the same thing succesful companies do?
I really don't have an opinion on the mural, I'm pointing out past arguments used would make this a moot point to begin with as going on past arguments ship sales are sales, and they're lining their pockets with them.. Apparently for this thread though, they're a part of pledging and are not sales.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
A mural that size would be in the £400 - £1000 price range, maybe slightly more for the high render. Having a custom print of 550 cm by 310cm (18 ft by 13 ft) costs around £450. Any person with an average job can pay for that.
Talk about spreading misinformation and grasping at straws, and it seems DS has involved himself again by helping out with the smear.
Really? Can you link me to where that is true? I got mine from here, http://www.morganmurals.com/pricing so i would like to see where you can have it done cheaper!
@Brenics, please bother clicking the link and go to that page, instead of taking Smart's word for it. See for yourself, that page is for a hired artist named Morgan Bricca, out of California that Hand Paints the walls for 5 hours a day. Not simply getting it digitally printed like they did at CIG. Here's an example of the cost of a digital print. .
Seriously folks, I don't want to seem like I'm being mean when I say this, but Derek is just a jealous old fool. He will twist and turn anything to try and fit his narrative, and he panders to the attitudes of people who are angry at a genre they feel scorned by, for many different reasons. He uses them for attention, he wants to be relevant. If he bothered to make a decent working game though, he would be relevant without his charade.
We've had enough evidence of his jealous anger towards SC fans, when he comes in and bombards threads like Beetlejuice. That's all the evidence anyone should need to know he's full of it.
I hate saying it this way. :-D You Realizer as soon as you used DS and the comment you made took all you said before as BS.
But if you say that about DS and really believe it, why can't you logicly use that same thought process to CR. Because 99% of what I hear CR say can also be said is BS. Not like the facts aren't there even more for Robert's of being a bad developer and even worse liar. That has been documented way back in his Origin days to present. Also the way he is running CIG proves the past even more.
So really if you want to attack DS which is fine (he can take care of himself) why not at least tell the truth about Robert's (clearly he needs you guys to stick up for him).
I'll tell you the reason, because I've already gave Derek Smart money for a terrible product that I uninstalled the same day I purchased. I haven't done that with a Roberts game yet, they have all been worth the cost I paid for them. If Derek ever made a game that was worth the price I paid, I'd say you have a point, but he's never given me reason to think of him as anything but a conman.
On the other hand, if Chris fails out of all of this and the game sucks or never gets a real launch, I'll call him a conman also. I'll be waiting to judge the final product in the only way that matters, playing it. Roberts isn't immune scrutiny, he just hasn't given me any reason to call him out yet like Smart has.
to be honest guys if SC was a scam and not just simply a project that is heavier weighted on marketing then production I would think CR would have bailed out with cash in hand a long time ago
I'd have to say not really as why would someone bail when money was still coming in?
I've followed a lot of games during development and so far the only difference with SC is it being a major title funded by players which means no corporate oversight. This means the backers, public, and news agencies assume that function, which I'm ok with as no one should really be given a check to do a job without some form of accountability attached to it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The people that were told that 100% of their money would get used to fund the game when they bought a ship certainly have a legitimate complaint.
I was referring to your statement about people saying that about WOW or anything else they buy from a company, none of that money has to be spent how the consumers see fit, that's not the way commerce works, a seller's profit is not beholden to any consumer .
If the company spends in a way that upsets its consumers, while they may not be held financially responsible by the law, the consumers can choose not to partake in the product. This ends up being potentially very destructive for the company. I'm actually surprised that you are trying to take a position that consumers have zero power in the company/consumer relationship.
And in the case of WoW, a lot of people think that is actually a potential major cause of losing so many subs.
I'm sure you can see yourself there's a huge difference between using money from sales as you wish, and using money from pledges as you wish..
pretty much every major successful game developer out there likely has a large mural in the lobby. It seems to me a requirement for a successfuly project. Can you explain in any real terms how it is not when the evidence seems to suggest otherwise?
see...? this is why crowd micro-management is dangerous. How do you know what is and is not good for development project? even more so when what you consider inappropriate is the same thing succesful companies do?
I really don't have an opinion on the mural, I'm pointing out past arguments used would make this a moot point to begin with as going on past arguments ship sales are sales, and they're lining their pockets with them.. Apparently for this thread though, they're a part of pledging and are not sales.
the very long post that you replied to which you stated that you have been trying to tell people the same thing concluded with this statement:
-------------------------
'Anyway, that Tos also says people give them money to be used to build the game, in good faith, not play Michaelangelo all over a fucking studio wall.' ------------------------
I am taking now that you agree with what that post said but do not have a view on this statement?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Posting the TOS is fine, posting a TOS that has been changed to fit Robert's thinking is wrong and I believe against the law (may be right or wrong with that one). But if a person accepted the TOS way back when he isn't connected to this new TOS.
That is the whole problem with this KS/Crowdfunding project with Robert's, he thinks he can say one thing then change the TOS to say Pledges when in fact that is not what people originally agreed too.
The people that were told that 100% of their money would get used to fund the game when they bought a ship certainly have a legitimate complaint.
I was referring to your statement about people saying that about WOW or anything else they buy from a company, none of that money has to be spent how the consumers see fit, that's not the way commerce works, a seller's profit is not beholden to any consumer .
If the company spends in a way that upsets its consumers, while they may not be held financially responsible by the law, the consumers can choose not to partake in the product. This ends up being potentially very destructive for the company. I'm actually surprised that you are trying to take a position that consumers have zero power in the company/consumer relationship.
And in the case of WoW, a lot of people think that is actually a potential major cause of losing so many subs.
I'm sure you can see yourself there's a huge difference between using money from sales as you wish, and using money from pledges as you wish..
No, none at all. If the consumers perceive that their money is being used frivolously (even after they were promised 100% was going to game development) and decide to stop partaking in the product, then it will hurt the company.
I mean, I answered your question about WoW because you wanted me to directly address it for some reason and then you go back to the place we started. Of course it's dangerous for a company to make such a commitment and then spend frivolously on stuff that is not needed to complete the project.
Surely you can see the difference between a company WITHOUT a released game charging for things and a company that HAS a released game charging for things. The consumers are going to have different standards for each, especially when one makes a promise about the future spending of that company.
the very long post that you replied to which you stated that you have been trying to tell people the same thing concluded with this statement:
-------------------------
'Anyway, that Tos also says people give them money to be used to build the game, in good faith, not play Michaelangelo all over a fucking studio wall.' ------------------------
I am taking now that you agree with what that post said but do not have a view on this statement?
IF you go back and look I cut everything not pertinent to my post out, so no I offered no opinion on that statement.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Posting the TOS is fine, posting a TOS that has been changed to fit Robert's thinking is wrong and I believe against the law (may be right or wrong with that one). But if a person accepted the TOS way back when he isn't connected to this new TOS.
That is the whole problem with this KS/Crowdfunding project with Robert's, he thinks he can say one thing then change the TOS to say Pledges when in fact that is not what people originally agreed too.
spending 15k on a mural for the lobby is pure development cost. I am telling you it is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
the very long post that you replied to which you stated that you have been trying to tell people the same thing concluded with this statement:
-------------------------
'Anyway, that Tos also says people give them money to be used to build the game, in good faith, not play Michaelangelo all over a fucking studio wall.' ------------------------
I am taking now that you agree with what that post said but do not have a view on this statement?
IF you go back and look I cut everything not pertinent to my post out, so no I offered no opinion on that statement.
you took a HUGE amount of your orginal reply out I can tell. that reply of yours orginally took up a lot of space. please dont be that guy
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
RSI is raising
funds for the Game. You may select one or more of the pledges offered on
the Website, or through RSI’s customer service, and pay the indicated
amount(s) in accordance with the following terms agreed between you and RSI:
Your payment (“Pledge”) is a deposit to be used for (a)
the production and delivery cost for the relevant pledge items (“Pledge
Item Cost”), and (b) the development and production cost of the Game,
including the costs of operating and hosting the Game, the Website and
the other RSI Services, and RSI’s corporate expenses associated with the foregoing (the “Game Cost”).
Yet when I tried pointing this out in past conversations, no one wanted to hear it, thats' the having it both ways part.
how can I see how this post was edited?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Posting the TOS is fine, posting a TOS that has been changed to fit Robert's thinking is wrong and I believe against the law (may be right or wrong with that one). But if a person accepted the TOS way back when he isn't connected to this new TOS.
That is the whole problem with this KS/Crowdfunding project with Robert's, he thinks he can say one thing then change the TOS to say Pledges when in fact that is not what people originally agreed too.
This is true, the Tos has changed over time, most recently toward the end of January 2016. When I posted the Tos, I was discussing it in present tense. If a person gave CIG money under the earlier ToS, they're just being reeeeally nice people by this point, letting Ortwin and Chris pocket 3.5 years worth of interest and/or investment revenue, and oh, milking the project indefinitely as long as people pay for more spaceships to be drawn.
Surely you can see the difference between a company WITHOUT a released game charging for things and a company that HAS a released game charging for things. The consumers are going to have different standards for each, especially when one makes a promise about the future spending of that company.
Surely I can see we're not even discussing the original point, ship sales being sales vs ships being part of pledges, you responded to, which has little to do with what fans want from released games..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
RSI is raising
funds for the Game. You may select one or more of the pledges offered on
the Website, or through RSI’s customer service, and pay the indicated
amount(s) in accordance with the following terms agreed between you and RSI:
Your payment (“Pledge”) is a deposit to be used for (a)
the production and delivery cost for the relevant pledge items (“Pledge
Item Cost”), and (b) the development and production cost of the Game,
including the costs of operating and hosting the Game, the Website and
the other RSI Services, and RSI’s corporate expenses associated with the foregoing (the “Game Cost”).
Yet when I tried pointing this out in past conversations, no one wanted to hear it, thats' the having it both ways part.
how can I see how this post was edited?
Well I hit this little widget and edited the post, that's how it was edited :P
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
RSI is raising
funds for the Game. You may select one or more of the pledges offered on
the Website, or through RSI’s customer service, and pay the indicated
amount(s) in accordance with the following terms agreed between you and RSI:
Your payment (“Pledge”) is a deposit to be used for (a)
the production and delivery cost for the relevant pledge items (“Pledge
Item Cost”), and (b) the development and production cost of the Game,
including the costs of operating and hosting the Game, the Website and
the other RSI Services, and RSI’s corporate expenses associated with the foregoing (the “Game Cost”).
Yet when I tried pointing this out in past conversations, no one wanted to hear it, thats' the having it both ways part.
how can I see how this post was edited?
Well I hit this little widget and edited the post, that's how it was edited :P
so your editing posts and then asking me to go back and read it as if what I replied to orginally was the edited post and not the orginal.
nicely done!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
so your editing posts and then asking me to go back and read it as if what I replied to orginally was the edited post and not the orginal.
nicely done!
Eh.. You asked if I agreed with the post (for whatever reason) I simply pointed out I removed most of that post, leaving only the tidbit I was referring to. Now we're here.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Surely you can see the difference between a company WITHOUT a released game charging for things and a company that HAS a released game charging for things. The consumers are going to have different standards for each, especially when one makes a promise about the future spending of that company.
Surely I can see we're not even discussing the original point, ship sales being sales vs ships being part of pledges, you responded to, which has little to do with what fans want from released games..
Ok, so how about this?
The people that were told that 100% of their money would get used to fund the game when they pledged for a game and a ship certainly have a legitimate complaint.
Whether ships are sales or pledges has nothing to do with how legitimate the complaint is. Why you are basing everything you are saying on that idea is odd because you have said nothing that supports it.
Comments
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos
VII. Fundraising & Pledges
RSI is raising funds for the Game. You may select one or more of the pledges offered on the Website, or through RSI’s customer service, and pay the indicated amount(s) in accordance with the following terms agreed between you and RSI:
The only thing you "purchase" is physical merchandise, if you want to look at IX. Notice the wording there, "purchase". I don't care what value added tax your country charges, as if it's some product being "sold". This is the agreement to which you consent when you give them money for a pledge account or any other digital "goods".
Bleh, I want to staple it on the subreddit, too, but I refuse to contribute to that shit show. People pop in all the time, "Guys! I just bought the game and I bought a spaceship!". No you didn't, dipshit. You didn't read the fine print.
Anyway, that Tos also says people give them money to be used to build the game, in good faith, not play Michaelangelo all over a fucking studio wall.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And in the case of WoW, a lot of people think that is actually a potential major cause of losing so many subs.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
But if you say that about DS and really believe it, why can't you logicly use that same thought process to CR. Because 99% of what I hear CR say can also be said is BS. Not like the facts aren't there even more for Robert's of being a bad developer and even worse liar. That has been documented way back in his Origin days to present. Also the way he is running CIG proves the past even more.
So really if you want to attack DS which is fine (he can take care of himself) why not at least tell the truth about Robert's (clearly he needs you guys to stick up for him).
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
HOWEVER...
the bottom line here is that:
1. we are not the managers of the project
2. not everyone universally agrees on how projects should be managed and what is a worthy cost and what is not a worthy cost.
2a. every AAA game developer ever has a large mural in the lobby
3. if you start getting into 'crowd micromanagement' my hunch is many projects will fail all over the place, however, if you told me about Kickstarter 10 years ago I would say that would fail to so not sure. maybe that is what you should start a kickstarter version of 'crowd micro-management'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It doesn't matter in the long run, and guess what "Kickstarter laws" if they did exist could still be worked around, by the same concept they are doing now. They are allowing people to purchase ships as pledges via their own website, this bypasses any contract Kickstarter might have, because the money isn't going through Kickstarter, it's direct to party. Whatever laws are proposed can be worked around, that's the nature of the internet.
Which in the end, is why you are still beating a dead horse. It's dead already, we get it Roberts used Kickstarter to start a gaming empire. Well the good news for haters is, if the game sucks the empire falls. It doesn't need you shouting from the rooftops. If the game is bad, it will fail on it's own. Nothing anybody can do about that.
see...? this is why crowd micro-management is dangerous. How do you know what is and is not good for development project? even more so when what you suggest is inappropriate is the same thing succesful companies do?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
On the other hand, if Chris fails out of all of this and the game sucks or never gets a real launch, I'll call him a conman also. I'll be waiting to judge the final product in the only way that matters, playing it. Roberts isn't immune scrutiny, he just hasn't given me any reason to call him out yet like Smart has.
I've followed a lot of games during development and so far the only difference with SC is it being a major title funded by players which means no corporate oversight. This means the backers, public, and news agencies assume that function, which I'm ok with as no one should really be given a check to do a job without some form of accountability attached to it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
-------------------------
'Anyway, that Tos also says people give them money to be used to build the game, in good faith, not play Michaelangelo all over a fucking studio wall.'
------------------------
I am taking now that you agree with what that post said but do not have a view on this statement?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That is the whole problem with this KS/Crowdfunding project with Robert's, he thinks he can say one thing then change the TOS to say Pledges when in fact that is not what people originally agreed too.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
I mean, I answered your question about WoW because you wanted me to directly address it for some reason and then you go back to the place we started. Of course it's dangerous for a company to make such a commitment and then spend frivolously on stuff that is not needed to complete the project.
Surely you can see the difference between a company WITHOUT a released game charging for things and a company that HAS a released game charging for things. The consumers are going to have different standards for each, especially when one makes a promise about the future spending of that company.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
how can I see how this post was edited?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
nicely done!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The people that were told that 100% of their money would get used to fund the game when they pledged for a game and a ship certainly have a legitimate complaint.
Whether ships are sales or pledges has nothing to do with how legitimate the complaint is. Why you are basing everything you are saying on that idea is odd because you have said nothing that supports it.