So, did you find out if there were any ongoing investigations about it? Oh, well, they probably wouldn't have told you, even if there were.
As one of our regular posters (@Crazkanuk) here can personally confirm after asking: there is NO ongoing investigation.
And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.
Have fun
Except that, you know, they don't have to tell you if there is a currently on going investigation. So really it confirms nothing
Actually, yes they do. Court documents, or at least filings, are public record. It's why we always hear about this shit relatively quickly before it even hits the courts. I believe you can actually search court filings online.
So, did you find out if there were any ongoing investigations about it? Oh, well, they probably wouldn't have told you, even if there were.
As one of our regular posters (@Crazkanuk) here can personally confirm after asking: there is NO ongoing investigation.
And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.
Have fun
Except that, you know, they don't have to tell you if there is a currently on going investigation. So really it confirms nothing
Actually, yes they do. Court documents, or at least filings, are public record. It's why we always hear about this shit relatively quickly before it even hits the courts. I believe you can actually search court filings online.
Court documents yes but investigations they don't have to tell you shit. So unless there was a lawsuit then we would know nothing
So, did you find out if there were any ongoing investigations about it? Oh, well, they probably wouldn't have told you, even if there were.
As one of our regular posters (@Crazkanuk) here can personally confirm after asking: there is NO ongoing investigation.
And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.
Have fun
Except that, you know, they don't have to tell you if there is a currently on going investigation. So really it confirms nothing
Actually, yes they do. Court documents, or at least filings, are public record. It's why we always hear about this shit relatively quickly before it even hits the courts. I believe you can actually search court filings online.
Court documents yes but investigations they don't have to tell you shit. So unless there was a lawsuit then we would know nothing
Yup, true. Where I am skeptical, though, is that something like Pokemon Go prompted multiple filings just months after release, whereas SC has produced nothing. I just don't think that there are as many people with vested interest in the game who are unhappy enough to really move forward with anything. Also, there were people who claimed they would personally fund a lawsuit, and that never materialized. I'm sure it's not THAT black and white, but it's blackish and whitish.
The biggest issue with a lawsuit like this is that it sets a precedent, and an extremely dangerous one at that. Precedent is a really big deal in the US and once it's set it immediately opens up all crowdfunded companies to lawsuits, depending on the ruling.
So I agree, I would probably be more surprised if there weren't investigations performed or ongoing with CIG. I think it's the responsible thing to do. However, I really don't think that there is any wrong-doing going on. Some may not like their business model, but it's really not something that a consumer protection agency would concern themselves over, unless there were other underlying concerns. So I guess we'll see.
So, did you find out if there were any ongoing investigations about it? Oh, well, they probably wouldn't have told you, even if there were.
As one of our regular posters (@Crazkanuk) here can personally confirm after asking: there is NO ongoing investigation.
And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.
Have fun
Except that, you know, they don't have to tell you if there is a currently on going investigation. So really it confirms nothing
Actually, yes they do. Court documents, or at least filings, are public record. It's why we always hear about this shit relatively quickly before it even hits the courts. I believe you can actually search court filings online.
Court documents yes but investigations they don't have to tell you shit. So unless there was a lawsuit then we would know nothing
Yup, true. Where I am skeptical, though, is that something like Pokemon Go prompted multiple filings just months after release, whereas SC has produced nothing. I just don't think that there are as many people with vested interest in the game who are unhappy enough to really move forward with anything. Also, there were people who claimed they would personally fund a lawsuit, and that never materialized. I'm sure it's not THAT black and white, but it's blackish and whitish.
The biggest issue with a lawsuit like this is that it sets a precedent, and an extremely dangerous one at that. Precedent is a really big deal in the US and once it's set it immediately opens up all crowdfunded companies to lawsuits, depending on the ruling.
So I agree, I would probably be more surprised if there weren't investigations performed or ongoing with CIG. I think it's the responsible thing to do. However, I really don't think that there is any wrong-doing going on. Some may not like their business model, but it's really not something that a consumer protection agency would concern themselves over, unless there were other underlying concerns. So I guess we'll see.
Precedent is as I'll agree with you there but the wheels need to get turning in order to get the laws caught up. Unfortunately sometimes the wheels chew up a lot of people or businesses in the process.
The only wrong doing that I think is going on is focused around Chris. He is the company's biggest liability while also being the source of income. Without him you wouldn't have all the nostalgia of wing commander bringing in the cash but at the same time he is, imo, running the company into the ground. It might not be visible yet but eventually reality overtakes hype and then the shit really goes south
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
So, did you find out if there were any ongoing investigations about it? Oh, well, they probably wouldn't have told you, even if there were.
As one of our regular posters (@Crazkanuk) here can personally confirm after asking: there is NO ongoing investigation.
And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.
Have fun
I don't know or care if an official investigation is open or not, but I can tell you that is not true at all. Agencies for the most part do not freely give out information on open investigations as it could compromise the investigation. And just because @CrazKanuk was told one thing when he called, again means nothing. There could still be a case, but if you're not one of the parties involved, they're not going to just share that with a stranger since open investigations are not open to the public. CrazKanuk mentioned that there was no court filing, but in states I know of ( I don't know how it works in California so I won't speculate), attorney general cases are separate, and usually done prior or in lieu of filing a case in court.
Hopefully that explanation made sense. Things are actually more complicated than that, but I tried to simplify it. Like I said, I don't know if there really is a case or not, but I just had to explain that.
So, did you find out if there were any ongoing investigations about it? Oh, well, they probably wouldn't have told you, even if there were.
As one of our regular posters (@Crazkanuk) here can personally confirm after asking: there is NO ongoing investigation.
And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.
Have fun
I don't know or care if an official investigation is open or not, but I can tell you that is not true at all. Agencies for the most part do not freely give out information on open investigations as it could compromise the investigation. And just because @CrazKanuk was told one thing when he called, again means nothing. There could still be a case, but if you're not one of the parties involved, they're not going to just share that with a stranger since open investigations are not open to the public. CrazKanuk mentioned that there was no court filing, but in states I know of ( I don't know how it works in California so I won't speculate), attorney general cases are separate, and usually done prior or in lieu of filing a case in court.
Hopefully that explanation made sense. Things are actually more complicated than that, but I tried to simplify it. Like I said, I don't know if there really is a case or not, but I just had to explain that.
You're right, things are more complicated than that. A lot of what you say is just a regurgitation of what I already said. I also said that because of the hoopla surrounding CIG, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T an investigation of some sort being performed, by somebody. However, this is an international problem, not just US or California, so if there has been NOTHING come out in a year...... Objectively speaking, I don't see anything happening. Also, remember that the DCBA, while it does protect consumers, it also serves to protect BUSINESSES!!!! The problem with this whole thing is that there is distinct malicious intent in many conversation surrounding the game and, therefore, they would also be looking to protect the company (who also employees people in CA) from being targeted by fraudsters.
Don't you think once the game is out the numbers of contractors and other employee will lower so they'll have less cost?
They need SQ42 sells to make good money.
Maybe...
There will still be bugs that need fixed, new content to release as DLC, new ships to sell, a massive increase in customer support and more admins/GM's to answer calls from the players, plus a huge increase in server hosting and bandwidth since they will then be hosting many more servers and the "over one million" people who have purchased the game will be playing instead of the few people who are playing on the PU today which is probably less than 10,000 people currently.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
So, did you find out if there were any ongoing investigations about it? Oh, well, they probably wouldn't have told you, even if there were.
As one of our regular posters (@Crazkanuk) here can personally confirm after asking: there is NO ongoing investigation.
And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.
Have fun
When the tax department comes around to charge a company for tax evasion, do you really think 'Hey you looking into my books / charge me?' will be answered?
Erillion, can you clarify if you are accusing government orgs as being incompetent in this post?
So, did you find out if there were any ongoing investigations about it? Oh, well, they probably wouldn't have told you, even if there were.
As one of our regular posters (@Crazkanuk) here can personally confirm after asking: there is NO ongoing investigation.
And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.
Have fun
I don't know or care if an official investigation is open or not, but I can tell you that is not true at all. Agencies for the most part do not freely give out information on open investigations as it could compromise the investigation. And just because @CrazKanuk was told one thing when he called, again means nothing. There could still be a case, but if you're not one of the parties involved, they're not going to just share that with a stranger since open investigations are not open to the public. CrazKanuk mentioned that there was no court filing, but in states I know of ( I don't know how it works in California so I won't speculate), attorney general cases are separate, and usually done prior or in lieu of filing a case in court.
Hopefully that explanation made sense. Things are actually more complicated than that, but I tried to simplify it. Like I said, I don't know if there really is a case or not, but I just had to explain that.
... Also, remember that the DCBA, while it does protect consumers, it also serves to protect BUSINESSES!!!! The problem with this whole thing is that there is distinct malicious intent in many conversation surrounding the game and, therefore, they would also be looking to protect the company (who also employees people in CA) from being targeted by fraudsters.
Just sayin'
Indeed.
There have been public calls (on the SA forums) for people to intentionally purchase SC packages and then ask for refunds so that they can file complaints with the likes of DCBA when the refunds are refused.
If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
The controversy surrounding CIG and SC is widely known by now. Any investigation would have to take into consideration that there's a very clear element who wish to destroy the project at any cost.
Voluntary refunds?
Can I clarify whether you are accusing the DCBA and the Attorney General for lying?
I am not accusing THEM of lying.
And BTW ... there is NO official case ongoing against CIG. Feel free to post the case number if you know one. People write the DCBA and the Attorney General - that is all. The same people let CIG know that they did so. Neither the DCBA nor the Attorney General have ordered CIG to do anything. I could write the DCBA or the Attorney General - with about the same impact.
CIG has given refunds for years now ... voluntarily. Long before anything related to the DCBA or the Attorney General.
Have fun
Can you clarify then (since you aren't accusing the DCBA / Attorney General for lying) whether you are accusing them as being incompetent by letting false news stories to be printed against them?
It's not really a maybe, on MMO's, in particular, they do go through layoffs to cut on costs; even though the game doesn't stop development the changes will have to happen as you also said the costs will grow on other areas as support and live release maintenance.
Things like teams dedicated to core/tech work that was already done, from engineering staff on network, physics, AI and such, will likely be cut over maintenance needs.
Possibly even shortly before or after SQ42 release the company might lay off part of the workforce that wouldn't be indispensable for SC's development.
There have been public calls (on the SA forums) for people to intentionally purchase SC packages and then ask for refunds so that they can file complaints with the likes of DCBA when the refunds are refused.
If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
The controversy surrounding CIG and SC is widely known by now. Any investigation would have to take into consideration that there's a very clear element who wish to destroy the project at any cost.
This lacks the fundamental understanding on how the law / government orgs setup to protect said laws operate in the US. 'Too difficult to determine' is a phrase that the law / government orgs do not use. Each filing is to be treated just as fairly as another filing.
Also, DCBA is only interested in a complaint if a refund is LEGALLY mandated to be given but not granted. Doesn't matter how many 'filings' there are.
There have been public calls (on the SA forums) for people to intentionally purchase SC packages and then ask for refunds so that they can file complaints with the likes of DCBA when the refunds are refused.
If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
The controversy surrounding CIG and SC is widely known by now. Any investigation would have to take into consideration that there's a very clear element who wish to destroy the project at any cost.
This lacks the fundamental understanding on how the law / government orgs setup to protect said laws operate in the US. 'Too difficult to determine' is a phrase that the law / government orgs do not use. Each filing is to be treated just as fairly as another filing.
Also, DCBA is only interested in a complaint if a refund is LEGALLY mandated to be given but not granted. Doesn't matter how many 'filings' there are.
I don't think that lacks any sort of understanding. I've already stated that I spoke to an investigator and part of that conversation was with regards to their protection of small businesses (since I'm a small business owner as well and the CIG case is fucking horrifying to me) and the sentiments of @SpottyGekko are fairly accurate, based on my understanding. You are correct, too, though, if a refund is legally mandated then I'm sure that it would be given. I'm also sure that this is one of the reasons for TOS changes, too. However, what he's trying to say is that there are/have been people who are/were specifically looking to defame or harm CIG, as well. In those cases, the DCBA WOULD consider the context of the situation. They would not make a decision in a vacuum. That being said, I'm sure it would still remain objective, too.
There have been public calls (on the SA forums) for people to intentionally purchase SC packages and then ask for refunds so that they can file complaints with the likes of DCBA when the refunds are refused.
If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
The controversy surrounding CIG and SC is widely known by now. Any investigation would have to take into consideration that there's a very clear element who wish to destroy the project at any cost.
... 'Too difficult to determine' is a phrase that the law / government orgs do not use. ...
Quite so.
The legal term is probably closer to "without merit" or something similar.
Messy cases get dismissed on a regular basis. Government departments have limited resources and budgets, and not every possible case is pursued. They're probably unlikely to dedicate extensive resources to unraveling the acrimonious mess that's become the "anti-CIG" campaign. Specially when the supposed "wrongdoing" is so trivial.
I don't think that lacks any sort of understanding. I've already stated that I spoke to an investigator and part of that conversation was with regards to their protection of small businesses (since I'm a small business owner as well and the CIG case is fucking horrifying to me) and the sentiments of @SpottyGekko are fairly accurate, based on my understanding. You are correct, too, though, if a refund is legally mandated then I'm sure that it would be given. I'm also sure that this is one of the reasons for TOS changes, too. However, what he's trying to say is that there are/have been people who are/were specifically looking to defame or harm CIG, as well. In those cases, the DCBA WOULD consider the context of the situation. They would not make a decision in a vacuum. That being said, I'm sure it would still remain objective, too.
Nope, this post proves you have no understanding on how laws / Government orgs setup to protect said laws operate. DCBA won't consider the context because the filing is legally sound. I can pledge to CIG today with the intent on making a refund request, ask for a refund tomorrow and if denied make a complaint to DCBA. The law states that I was within my 14-day refund period so it is legally sound and mandated. DCBA can't suddenly change consumer protection laws due to 'context' because a. that's not their job b. they don't have that power.
To put it in simple terms, if my refund request was denied, it would be CIG who is breaking the law. A government org would have no option to side with me since the law is saying I am right.
If you are indeed a small business owner, I believe a basic understanding of consumer protection laws would assist you greatly.
I don't think that lacks any sort of understanding. I've already stated that I spoke to an investigator and part of that conversation was with regards to their protection of small businesses (since I'm a small business owner as well and the CIG case is fucking horrifying to me) and the sentiments of @SpottyGekko are fairly accurate, based on my understanding. You are correct, too, though, if a refund is legally mandated then I'm sure that it would be given. I'm also sure that this is one of the reasons for TOS changes, too. However, what he's trying to say is that there are/have been people who are/were specifically looking to defame or harm CIG, as well. In those cases, the DCBA WOULD consider the context of the situation. They would not make a decision in a vacuum. That being said, I'm sure it would still remain objective, too.
Nope, this post proves you have no understanding on how laws / Government orgs setup to protect said laws operate. DCBA won't consider the context because the filing is legally sound. I can pledge to CIG today with the intent on making a refund request, ask for a refund tomorrow and if denied make a complaint to DCBA. The law states that I was within my 14-day refund period so it is legally sound and mandated. DCBA can't suddenly change consumer protection laws due to 'context' because a. that's not their job b. they don't have that power.
To put it in simple terms, if my refund request was denied, it would be CIG who is breaking the law. A government org would have no option to side with me since the law is saying I am right.
If you are indeed a small business owner, I believe a basic understanding of consumer protection laws would assist you greatly.
Lol, that proves nothing. Interesting..... how is it that I cannot return an opened game to Wal-Mart then? Any time? You cannot take a game back because you didn't like it and want something else. Then maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. However, once you've "accepted" the product I don't believe you have any right to a refund. I quote "accepted" because that's the grey area we're dealing with here. You're right, I'm not a lawyer and I am well aware that you are able to get refunds by some means, if necessary, but I think you're wrong. It appears that each state handles refunds separately. You're even wrong about California. Please feel free to post the law that you're talking about because I haven't found anything on it.
I don't think that lacks any sort of understanding. I've already stated that I spoke to an investigator and part of that conversation was with regards to their protection of small businesses (since I'm a small business owner as well and the CIG case is fucking horrifying to me) and the sentiments of @SpottyGekko are fairly accurate, based on my understanding. You are correct, too, though, if a refund is legally mandated then I'm sure that it would be given. I'm also sure that this is one of the reasons for TOS changes, too. However, what he's trying to say is that there are/have been people who are/were specifically looking to defame or harm CIG, as well. In those cases, the DCBA WOULD consider the context of the situation. They would not make a decision in a vacuum. That being said, I'm sure it would still remain objective, too.
Nope, this post proves you have no understanding on how laws / Government orgs setup to protect said laws operate. DCBA won't consider the context because the filing is legally sound. I can pledge to CIG today with the intent on making a refund request, ask for a refund tomorrow and if denied make a complaint to DCBA. The law states that I was within my 14-day refund period so it is legally sound and mandated. DCBA can't suddenly change consumer protection laws due to 'context' because a. that's not their job b. they don't have that power.
To put it in simple terms, if my refund request was denied, it would be CIG who is breaking the law. A government org would have no option to side with me since the law is saying I am right.
If you are indeed a small business owner, I believe a basic understanding of consumer protection laws would assist you greatly.
Lol, that proves nothing. Interesting..... how is it that I cannot return an opened game to Wal-Mart then? Any time? You cannot take a game back because you didn't like it and want something else. Then maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. However, once you've "accepted" the product I don't believe you have any right to a refund. I quote "accepted" because that's the grey area we're dealing with here. You're right, I'm not a lawyer and I am well aware that you are able to get refunds by some means, if necessary, but I think you're wrong. It appears that each state handles refunds separately. You're even wrong about California. Please feel free to post the law that you're talking about because I haven't found anything on it.
Thanks in advance!
The money given to cig is a contract for purchased goods. Until they deliver on the goods they are under contract. If you gave Walmart money for something and it never arrived or you changed your mind then they would give the money back unless there was some sort of contract. That is why the TOS on kickstarters are so important.
I don't think that lacks any sort of understanding. I've already stated that I spoke to an investigator and part of that conversation was with regards to their protection of small businesses (since I'm a small business owner as well and the CIG case is fucking horrifying to me) and the sentiments of @SpottyGekko are fairly accurate, based on my understanding. You are correct, too, though, if a refund is legally mandated then I'm sure that it would be given. I'm also sure that this is one of the reasons for TOS changes, too. However, what he's trying to say is that there are/have been people who are/were specifically looking to defame or harm CIG, as well. In those cases, the DCBA WOULD consider the context of the situation. They would not make a decision in a vacuum. That being said, I'm sure it would still remain objective, too.
Nope, this post proves you have no understanding on how laws / Government orgs setup to protect said laws operate. DCBA won't consider the context because the filing is legally sound. I can pledge to CIG today with the intent on making a refund request, ask for a refund tomorrow and if denied make a complaint to DCBA. The law states that I was within my 14-day refund period so it is legally sound and mandated. DCBA can't suddenly change consumer protection laws due to 'context' because a. that's not their job b. they don't have that power.
To put it in simple terms, if my refund request was denied, it would be CIG who is breaking the law. A government org would have no option to side with me since the law is saying I am right.
If you are indeed a small business owner, I believe a basic understanding of consumer protection laws would assist you greatly.
Lol, that proves nothing. Interesting..... how is it that I cannot return an opened game to Wal-Mart then? Any time? You cannot take a game back because you didn't like it and want something else. Then maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. However, once you've "accepted" the product I don't believe you have any right to a refund. I quote "accepted" because that's the grey area we're dealing with here. You're right, I'm not a lawyer and I am well aware that you are able to get refunds by some means, if necessary, but I think you're wrong. It appears that each state handles refunds separately. You're even wrong about California. Please feel free to post the law that you're talking about because I haven't found anything on it.
Thanks in advance!
The money given to cig is a contract for purchased goods. Until they deliver on the goods they are under contract. If you gave Walmart money for something and it never arrived or you changed your mind then they would give the money back unless there was some sort of contract. That is why the TOS on kickstarters are so important.
This is the nebulous part of it, isn't it? Are they obligated to deliver anything? Since PayPal has implemented rules preventing people from getting refunds from crowdfunding projects, I'm assuming that there isn't an explicit, legal obligation. Does a company want to get wrapped up in legal battles? Probably not either. However, I'm saying that I think there are some misconceptions surrounding what the legal right of the consumer is in these cases. Also, it would track back to precedent, being that there isn't any. Remember that you aren't buying a product, you are supporting a crowdfunded initiative. The product is an incentive offered depending on the amount pledged. That being said, CIG certainly blurs that line with the whole ship sale thing.
Honestly, I haven't seen anything in the Kickstarter TOS that states that the users are legally obligated to deliver anything. It's all legalese about effort and trying to. They are obligated to try to deliver something. If they were legally bound by Kickstarter TOS to deliver something, then the 10% or whatever the number, of failed KS projects would be rife with refunds, but I don't think that's the case. It's accepted that your money is gone. Or maybe it isn't....
I don't think that lacks any sort of understanding. I've already stated that I spoke to an investigator and part of that conversation was with regards to their protection of small businesses (since I'm a small business owner as well and the CIG case is fucking horrifying to me) and the sentiments of @SpottyGekko are fairly accurate, based on my understanding. You are correct, too, though, if a refund is legally mandated then I'm sure that it would be given. I'm also sure that this is one of the reasons for TOS changes, too. However, what he's trying to say is that there are/have been people who are/were specifically looking to defame or harm CIG, as well. In those cases, the DCBA WOULD consider the context of the situation. They would not make a decision in a vacuum. That being said, I'm sure it would still remain objective, too.
Nope, this post proves you have no understanding on how laws / Government orgs setup to protect said laws operate. DCBA won't consider the context because the filing is legally sound. I can pledge to CIG today with the intent on making a refund request, ask for a refund tomorrow and if denied make a complaint to DCBA. The law states that I was within my 14-day refund period so it is legally sound and mandated. DCBA can't suddenly change consumer protection laws due to 'context' because a. that's not their job b. they don't have that power.
To put it in simple terms, if my refund request was denied, it would be CIG who is breaking the law. A government org would have no option to side with me since the law is saying I am right.
If you are indeed a small business owner, I believe a basic understanding of consumer protection laws would assist you greatly.
Lol, that proves nothing. Interesting..... how is it that I cannot return an opened game to Wal-Mart then? Any time? You cannot take a game back because you didn't like it and want something else. Then maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. However, once you've "accepted" the product I don't believe you have any right to a refund. I quote "accepted" because that's the grey area we're dealing with here. You're right, I'm not a lawyer and I am well aware that you are able to get refunds by some means, if necessary, but I think you're wrong. It appears that each state handles refunds separately. You're even wrong about California. Please feel free to post the law that you're talking about because I haven't found anything on it.
Thanks in advance!
The money given to cig is a contract for purchased goods. Until they deliver on the goods they are under contract. If you gave Walmart money for something and it never arrived or you changed your mind then they would give the money back unless there was some sort of contract. That is why the TOS on kickstarters are so important.
This is the nebulous part of it, isn't it? Are they obligated to deliver anything? Since PayPal has implemented rules preventing people from getting refunds from crowdfunding projects, I'm assuming that there isn't an explicit, legal obligation. Does a company want to get wrapped up in legal battles? Probably not either. However, I'm saying that I think there are some misconceptions surrounding what the legal right of the consumer is in these cases. Also, it would track back to precedent, being that there isn't any. Remember that you aren't buying a product, you are supporting a crowdfunded initiative. The product is an incentive offered depending on the amount pledged. That being said, CIG certainly blurs that line with the whole ship sale thing.
Honestly, I haven't seen anything in the Kickstarter TOS that states that the users are legally obligated to deliver anything. It's all legalese about effort and trying to. They are obligated to try to deliver something. If they were legally bound by Kickstarter TOS to deliver something, then the 10% or whatever the number, of failed KS projects would be rife with refunds, but I don't think that's the case. It's accepted that your money is gone. Or maybe it isn't....
Yet charging tax on what you say is actually pledges and then say they aren't obligated to release anything. That is what a lot of people would call a scam. But really they have promised to release a game which is why we pay tax. One thing for sure on the way Robert's set this up will end up in court one day. Charging taxes will end up making that happen, unless he starts actually moving forward and make the games.
A lawsuit almost seems like an inevitability, for more than one reason. That being said, I would have thought that based on the steam from last year, we would have seen something by now. Since then, though, the steam seems to have fallen off significantly, minus a few who seem determined to continue to argue in circles until it's released (present company included)
I don't think that lacks any sort of understanding. I've already stated that I spoke to an investigator and part of that conversation was with regards to their protection of small businesses (since I'm a small business owner as well and the CIG case is fucking horrifying to me) and the sentiments of @SpottyGekko are fairly accurate, based on my understanding. You are correct, too, though, if a refund is legally mandated then I'm sure that it would be given. I'm also sure that this is one of the reasons for TOS changes, too. However, what he's trying to say is that there are/have been people who are/were specifically looking to defame or harm CIG, as well. In those cases, the DCBA WOULD consider the context of the situation. They would not make a decision in a vacuum. That being said, I'm sure it would still remain objective, too.
Nope, this post proves you have no understanding on how laws / Government orgs setup to protect said laws operate. DCBA won't consider the context because the filing is legally sound. I can pledge to CIG today with the intent on making a refund request, ask for a refund tomorrow and if denied make a complaint to DCBA. The law states that I was within my 14-day refund period so it is legally sound and mandated. DCBA can't suddenly change consumer protection laws due to 'context' because a. that's not their job b. they don't have that power.
To put it in simple terms, if my refund request was denied, it would be CIG who is breaking the law. A government org would have no option to side with me since the law is saying I am right.
If you are indeed a small business owner, I believe a basic understanding of consumer protection laws would assist you greatly.
Lol, that proves nothing. Interesting..... how is it that I cannot return an opened game to Wal-Mart then? Any time? You cannot take a game back because you didn't like it and want something else. Then maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. However, once you've "accepted" the product I don't believe you have any right to a refund. I quote "accepted" because that's the grey area we're dealing with here. You're right, I'm not a lawyer and I am well aware that you are able to get refunds by some means, if necessary, but I think you're wrong. It appears that each state handles refunds separately. You're even wrong about California. Please feel free to post the law that you're talking about because I haven't found anything on it.
Thanks in advance!
The money given to cig is a contract for purchased goods. Until they deliver on the goods they are under contract. If you gave Walmart money for something and it never arrived or you changed your mind then they would give the money back unless there was some sort of contract. That is why the TOS on kickstarters are so important.
This is the nebulous part of it, isn't it? Are they obligated to deliver anything? Since PayPal has implemented rules preventing people from getting refunds from crowdfunding projects, I'm assuming that there isn't an explicit, legal obligation. Does a company want to get wrapped up in legal battles? Probably not either. However, I'm saying that I think there are some misconceptions surrounding what the legal right of the consumer is in these cases. Also, it would track back to precedent, being that there isn't any. Remember that you aren't buying a product, you are supporting a crowdfunded initiative. The product is an incentive offered depending on the amount pledged. That being said, CIG certainly blurs that line with the whole ship sale thing.
Honestly, I haven't seen anything in the Kickstarter TOS that states that the users are legally obligated to deliver anything. It's all legalese about effort and trying to. They are obligated to try to deliver something. If they were legally bound by Kickstarter TOS to deliver something, then the 10% or whatever the number, of failed KS projects would be rife with refunds, but I don't think that's the case. It's accepted that your money is gone. Or maybe it isn't....
Yet charging tax on what you say is actually pledges and then say they aren't obligated to release anything. That is what a lot of people would call a scam. But really they have promised to release a game which is why we pay tax. One thing for sure on the way Robert's set this up will end up in court one day. Charging taxes will end up making that happen, unless he starts actually moving forward and make the games.
Lol
A company doesn't charge tax, the government does. Companies collect it at no charge for the government. Being a Government tax collector costs my company plenty and its not something that's voluntary.
Lol, that proves nothing. Interesting..... how is it that I cannot return an opened game to Wal-Mart then? Any time? You cannot take a game back because you didn't like it and want something else. Then maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. However, once you've "accepted" the product I don't believe you have any right to a refund. I quote "accepted" because that's the grey area we're dealing with here. You're right, I'm not a lawyer and I am well aware that you are able to get refunds by some means, if necessary, but I think you're wrong. It appears that each state handles refunds separately. You're even wrong about California. Please feel free to post the law that you're talking about because I haven't found anything on it.
Thanks in advance!
What happened to your reasoning of If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
Its okay, people say things they know nothing about but claim they do, just like you.
Since you just said you aren't a lawyer and you just proved that you don't really know how a government agency in the US operate, your 'I don't believe you have any right to a refund' is also suspect (and wrong).
The irony is that since both sides are a. not lawyers b. disagree on consumer rights, the proper way would be to ask government agencies (DCBA, Attorney General) for assistance by filing with them. Just like the $3000 refund guy.
So, did you find out if there were any ongoing investigations about it? Oh, well, they probably wouldn't have told you, even if there were.
As one of our regular posters (@Crazkanuk) here can personally confirm after asking: there is NO ongoing investigation.
And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.
Have fun
I don't know or care if an official investigation is open or not, but I can tell you that is not true at all. Agencies for the most part do not freely give out information on open investigations as it could compromise the investigation. And just because @CrazKanuk was told one thing when he called, again means nothing. There could still be a case, but if you're not one of the parties involved, they're not going to just share that with a stranger since open investigations are not open to the public. CrazKanuk mentioned that there was no court filing, but in states I know of ( I don't know how it works in California so I won't speculate), attorney general cases are separate, and usually done prior or in lieu of filing a case in court.
Hopefully that explanation made sense. Things are actually more complicated than that, but I tried to simplify it. Like I said, I don't know if there really is a case or not, but I just had to explain that.
You're right, things are more complicated than that. A lot of what you say is just a regurgitation of what I already said. I also said that because of the hoopla surrounding CIG, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T an investigation of some sort being performed, by somebody. However, this is an international problem, not just US or California, so if there has been NOTHING come out in a year...... Objectively speaking, I don't see anything happening. Also, remember that the DCBA, while it does protect consumers, it also serves to protect BUSINESSES!!!! The problem with this whole thing is that there is distinct malicious intent in many conversation surrounding the game and, therefore, they would also be looking to protect the company (who also employees people in CA) from being targeted by fraudsters.
Just sayin'
True. However, It may be an international problem, but state agencies are limited to only handling cases within their state. There may also be people committing fraud, but each case would have to be looked at and investigated individually. Also, a year's timeframe is optimistic at best. In states I know of, more than 2 years is not unheard of depending on the agency's caseload. And in California, which is a big state, I wouldn't be surprised if their caseload was huge.
Lol, that proves nothing. Interesting..... how is it that I cannot return an opened game to Wal-Mart then? Any time? You cannot take a game back because you didn't like it and want something else. Then maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. However, once you've "accepted" the product I don't believe you have any right to a refund. I quote "accepted" because that's the grey area we're dealing with here. You're right, I'm not a lawyer and I am well aware that you are able to get refunds by some means, if necessary, but I think you're wrong. It appears that each state handles refunds separately. You're even wrong about California. Please feel free to post the law that you're talking about because I haven't found anything on it.
Thanks in advance!
What happened to your reasoning of If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
Its okay, people say things they know nothing about but claim they do, just like you.
Since you just said you aren't a lawyer and you just proved that you don't really know how a government agency in the US operate, your 'I don't believe you have any right to a refund' is also suspect (and wrong).
The irony is that since both sides are a. not lawyers b. disagree on consumer rights, the proper way would be to ask government agencies (DCBA, Attorney General) for assistance by filing with them. Just like the $3000 refund guy.
And yet I provided you links to sites with the laws for each individual state, many of which state that companies make their own refund policies, and you linked nothing. Instead you throw up a strawman argument and ignore the actual claims.... the ones that you made! Please link something relevant or don't bother responding. Oh! And I highly doubt you're a lawyer either, so let's not throw stones in glass houses, k?
Comments
Actually, yes they do. Court documents, or at least filings, are public record. It's why we always hear about this shit relatively quickly before it even hits the courts. I believe you can actually search court filings online.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Yup, true. Where I am skeptical, though, is that something like Pokemon Go prompted multiple filings just months after release, whereas SC has produced nothing. I just don't think that there are as many people with vested interest in the game who are unhappy enough to really move forward with anything. Also, there were people who claimed they would personally fund a lawsuit, and that never materialized. I'm sure it's not THAT black and white, but it's blackish and whitish.
The biggest issue with a lawsuit like this is that it sets a precedent, and an extremely dangerous one at that. Precedent is a really big deal in the US and once it's set it immediately opens up all crowdfunded companies to lawsuits, depending on the ruling.
So I agree, I would probably be more surprised if there weren't investigations performed or ongoing with CIG. I think it's the responsible thing to do. However, I really don't think that there is any wrong-doing going on. Some may not like their business model, but it's really not something that a consumer protection agency would concern themselves over, unless there were other underlying concerns. So I guess we'll see.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
The only wrong doing that I think is going on is focused around Chris. He is the company's biggest liability while also being the source of income. Without him you wouldn't have all the nostalgia of wing commander bringing in the cash but at the same time he is, imo, running the company into the ground. It might not be visible yet but eventually reality overtakes hype and then the shit really goes south
Here is your game .
And the year will be released .
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Hopefully that explanation made sense. Things are actually more complicated than that, but I tried to simplify it. Like I said, I don't know if there really is a case or not, but I just had to explain that.
You're right, things are more complicated than that. A lot of what you say is just a regurgitation of what I already said. I also said that because of the hoopla surrounding CIG, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T an investigation of some sort being performed, by somebody. However, this is an international problem, not just US or California, so if there has been NOTHING come out in a year...... Objectively speaking, I don't see anything happening. Also, remember that the DCBA, while it does protect consumers, it also serves to protect BUSINESSES!!!! The problem with this whole thing is that there is distinct malicious intent in many conversation surrounding the game and, therefore, they would also be looking to protect the company (who also employees people in CA) from being targeted by fraudsters.
Just sayin'
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
There will still be bugs that need fixed, new content to release as DLC, new ships to sell, a massive increase in customer support and more admins/GM's to answer calls from the players, plus a huge increase in server hosting and bandwidth since they will then be hosting many more servers and the "over one million" people who have purchased the game will be playing instead of the few people who are playing on the PU today which is probably less than 10,000 people currently.
When the tax department comes around to charge a company for tax evasion, do you really think 'Hey you looking into my books / charge me?' will be answered?
Erillion, can you clarify if you are accusing government orgs as being incompetent in this post?
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
There have been public calls (on the SA forums) for people to intentionally purchase SC packages and then ask for refunds so that they can file complaints with the likes of DCBA when the refunds are refused.
If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
The controversy surrounding CIG and SC is widely known by now. Any investigation would have to take into consideration that there's a very clear element who wish to destroy the project at any cost.
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
Things like teams dedicated to core/tech work that was already done, from engineering staff on network, physics, AI and such, will likely be cut over maintenance needs.
Possibly even shortly before or after SQ42 release the company might lay off part of the workforce that wouldn't be indispensable for SC's development.
'Too difficult to determine' is a phrase that the law / government orgs do not use.
Each filing is to be treated just as fairly as another filing.
Also, DCBA is only interested in a complaint if a refund is LEGALLY mandated to be given but not granted. Doesn't matter how many 'filings' there are.
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
I don't think that lacks any sort of understanding. I've already stated that I spoke to an investigator and part of that conversation was with regards to their protection of small businesses (since I'm a small business owner as well and the CIG case is fucking horrifying to me) and the sentiments of @SpottyGekko are fairly accurate, based on my understanding. You are correct, too, though, if a refund is legally mandated then I'm sure that it would be given. I'm also sure that this is one of the reasons for TOS changes, too. However, what he's trying to say is that there are/have been people who are/were specifically looking to defame or harm CIG, as well. In those cases, the DCBA WOULD consider the context of the situation. They would not make a decision in a vacuum. That being said, I'm sure it would still remain objective, too.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
The legal term is probably closer to "without merit" or something similar.
Messy cases get dismissed on a regular basis. Government departments have limited resources and budgets, and not every possible case is pursued. They're probably unlikely to dedicate extensive resources to unraveling the acrimonious mess that's become the "anti-CIG" campaign. Specially when the supposed "wrongdoing" is so trivial.
DCBA won't consider the context because the filing is legally sound. I can pledge to CIG today with the intent on making a refund request, ask for a refund tomorrow and if denied make a complaint to DCBA.
The law states that I was within my 14-day refund period so it is legally sound and mandated.
DCBA can't suddenly change consumer protection laws due to 'context' because a. that's not their job b. they don't have that power.
To put it in simple terms, if my refund request was denied, it would be CIG who is breaking the law. A government org would have no option to side with me since the law is saying I am right.
If you are indeed a small business owner, I believe a basic understanding of consumer protection laws would assist you greatly.
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
Lol, that proves nothing. Interesting..... how is it that I cannot return an opened game to Wal-Mart then? Any time? You cannot take a game back because you didn't like it and want something else. Then maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. However, once you've "accepted" the product I don't believe you have any right to a refund. I quote "accepted" because that's the grey area we're dealing with here. You're right, I'm not a lawyer and I am well aware that you are able to get refunds by some means, if necessary, but I think you're wrong. It appears that each state handles refunds separately. You're even wrong about California. Please feel free to post the law that you're talking about because I haven't found anything on it.
Thanks in advance!
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
This is the nebulous part of it, isn't it? Are they obligated to deliver anything? Since PayPal has implemented rules preventing people from getting refunds from crowdfunding projects, I'm assuming that there isn't an explicit, legal obligation. Does a company want to get wrapped up in legal battles? Probably not either. However, I'm saying that I think there are some misconceptions surrounding what the legal right of the consumer is in these cases. Also, it would track back to precedent, being that there isn't any. Remember that you aren't buying a product, you are supporting a crowdfunded initiative. The product is an incentive offered depending on the amount pledged. That being said, CIG certainly blurs that line with the whole ship sale thing.
Honestly, I haven't seen anything in the Kickstarter TOS that states that the users are legally obligated to deliver anything. It's all legalese about effort and trying to. They are obligated to try to deliver something. If they were legally bound by Kickstarter TOS to deliver something, then the 10% or whatever the number, of failed KS projects would be rife with refunds, but I don't think that's the case. It's accepted that your money is gone. Or maybe it isn't....
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
A lawsuit almost seems like an inevitability, for more than one reason. That being said, I would have thought that based on the steam from last year, we would have seen something by now. Since then, though, the steam seems to have fallen off significantly, minus a few who seem determined to continue to argue in circles until it's released (present company included)
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
A company doesn't charge tax, the government does. Companies collect it at no charge for the government. Being a Government tax collector costs my company plenty and its not something that's voluntary.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
Its okay, people say things they know nothing about but claim they do, just like you.
Since you just said you aren't a lawyer and you just proved that you don't really know how a government agency in the US operate, your 'I don't believe you have any right to a refund' is also suspect (and wrong).
The irony is that since both sides are a. not lawyers b. disagree on consumer rights, the proper way would be to ask government agencies (DCBA, Attorney General) for assistance by filing with them. Just like the $3000 refund guy.
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
And yet I provided you links to sites with the laws for each individual state, many of which state that companies make their own refund policies, and you linked nothing. Instead you throw up a strawman argument and ignore the actual claims.... the ones that you made! Please link something relevant or don't bother responding. Oh! And I highly doubt you're a lawyer either, so let's not throw stones in glass houses, k?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------