So many Elite fanboys on this site, it explains why their forum is so amazingly busy....
Meanwhile, the SC fanboys have this forum pushing updates to their phones 24/7, it would almost appear that they enjoy the drama more than the game. $190 million just so they can play forum pvp, what a bargain!
For me it's just a game, a form of entertainment and something to play. For others it's like a sports team and they will say or do what it takes to show loyalty to their team and they take everything said about the game as something being said about them. Either that or they may be getting paid for posting.
Meh why you even feed trolling... Just petty hyperbole to provoke the SC fans.
At least there's other posters around where can exist a discussion here and there, this is just bait trolling that the other keeps reacting to so it turns into a mess and we get yet another thread locked...
For me it's just a game, a form of entertainment and something to play. For others it's like a sports team and they will say or do what it takes to show loyalty to their team and they take everything said about the game as something being said about them. Either that or they may be getting paid for posting.
Meh why you even feed trolling... Just petty hyperbole to provoke the SC fans.
Yet again you completely ignore the posters on your side of the camp who constantly bait, provoke, hyperbole, troll and constantly dis other games.
Yet again you completely ignore the posters on your side of the camp who constantly bait, provoke, hyperbole, troll and constantly dis other games.
Was mentioning the specific response, if you watch the thread you see him laying several baits through it, the other guy takes it and puts up a rather contentless rant to counter and it keeps going on.
Before it was the "naysayers" catapulting ED against SC fans, now it's the SC fans catapulting ED against the "naysayers"... this forum PvP is just meh, beating the same dead horses for years every thread is a copy/paste of one another. --'
-CIG is currently developping Star Citizen. -CIG is led by Chris Roberts, visionary game developper, prodigy from the 90s who came back to save pc gaming.
-All the pipelines have been refactored and are currently churning out content at an incredible pace.
-They're creating ground breaking technology, pushing the boundaries of pc gaming.
-Star Citizen, though currently in alpha, already has more content and is more fun than any other game.
-The game is getting better and better with each and every update.
-There is absolutely no reason not to be confident in this project.
-Star Citizen will be the new standard by which any other game will be judged.
So, with these elements taken in account, why are backers raging that hard at what people can write on the internet? Why do they always rant about that sa goon derek fud thing? Why do they point at strangers on the internet, accusing them of being sa derek goon fud people, and why do they project all this twisted spectrum of emotions on them?
From an outside point of view, sometimes it looks as if backers weren't having that much fun in the verse.
For me it's just a game, a form of entertainment and something to play. For others it's like a sports team and they will say or do what it takes to show loyalty to their team and they take everything said about the game as something being said about them. Either that or they may be getting paid for posting.
This is pretty spot on, especially when you consider that E:D and Star Citizen were announced around the same time, allowing for immediate lines to be drawn. It's no different than when the console wars kick up.
-CIG is currently developping Star Citizen. -CIG is led by Chris Roberts, visionary game developper, prodigy from the 90s who came back to save pc gaming.
-All the pipelines have been refactored and are currently churning out content at an incredible pace.
-They're creating ground breaking technology, pushing the boundaries of pc gaming.
-Star Citizen, though currently in alpha, already has more content and is more fun than any other game.
-The game is getting better and better with each and every update.
-There is absolutely no reason not to be confident in this project.
-Star Citizen will be the new standard by which any other game will be judged.
So, with these elements taken in account, why are backers raging that hard at what people can write on the internet? Why do they always rant about that sa goon derek fud thing? Why do they point at strangers on the internet, accusing them of being sa derek goon fud people, and why do they project all this twisted spectrum of emotions on them?
From an outside point of view, sometimes it looks as if backers weren't having that much fun in the verse.
For me it's just a game, a form of entertainment and something to play. For others it's like a sports team and they will say or do what it takes to show loyalty to their team and they take everything said about the game as something being said about them. Either that or they may be getting paid for posting.
This is pretty spot on, especially when you consider that E:D and Star Citizen were announced around the same time, allowing for immediate lines to be drawn. It's no different than when the console wars kick up.
Actual lawyer actually addressing if people are entitled to refunds or not, to all that is legal (in the context of US as is where he practices)
And is pretty much, people should be more responsible on this matter, when backing crowdfunding you should only pledge what you can afford to loose. That is not any unseen take, said before, Paypal itself has decided to distinguish crowdfunding from a Pre-Order, arguing that it is speculative and it involves risks the consumer must assume.
People should stop seeing crowdfunding as a pre-order platform, and ignore any risks by feeling entitled to all sorts of guarantees to act like the money you spent on something you funded is "insured". Then yes more people should then take one informed decision on either they get involved or get away from crowdfunds.
ps: but personally that crowdfunding needs its own regulations, especially against malicious practices. But as for legitimate ones, an "insurance" can't be given, that goes against the very point of crowdfunding, such as "refund rights" over something you fund, pledges will be earned hence regulation needs to fall upon what can be realistically achieved.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Oh the pooor consumers lol.... According to the haters there's no product so what consumers? You meant backers? Oh crowdfunding is so complicated... Why oh why cig forced these "adults" to give them money...
Yeah better defend the multimillion company and shit on consumer rights just because you're obsessed with white-knighting.
Well I defend people need to be informed and aware of what they get themselves into, getting into crowdfunding and acting like it's a pre-order where your pledge is legally "insured" is a problem; and people around with their entitlement only help on deceiving people towards how crowdfunding actually works, instead of directing their aim at the real issue of those who use it with malicious intent.
People should stop seeing crowdfunding as a pre-order platform, and ignore any risks by feeling entitled to all sorts of guarantees to act like the money you spent on something you funded is "insured". Then yes more people should then take one informed decision on either they get involved or get away from crowdfunds.
ps: but personally that crowdfunding needs its own regulations, especially against malicious practices. But as for legitimate ones, an "insurance" can't be given, that goes against the very point of crowdfunding, such as "refund rights" over something you fund, pledges will be earned hence regulation needs to fall upon what can be realistically achieved.
As I said in another thread one of the complications is established companies using crowdfunding as a pre-order platform; benefiting from the publicity and funding. (Although pre-orders would also provide funding of course.)
And - when a crowdfunding project becomes established and money is no longer required to complete the project - pledges are basically sales.
-----
And was crowdfunding ever intended to fund "risky projects"? People who fund risky projects expect high rewards - and maybe the project shouldn't be using crowdfunding.
Now for sure the concept of crowdfunding was to fund things that might struggle to get funding otherwise but high risk. multi-year projects? Interesting question. I am not sure your admonishment for people to get away from crowdfunding if they can't take the risk is accurate though; I am not sure crowdfunding was ever supposed to be about "unlimited risk". Then again its a grey area.
Yeah I'm sure it's the "entitlement" disgruntled consumers feel that's deceiving people and not the guy at the helm of a multimillion company that has constantly lied to you about when and what you're getting.
As I said in another thread one of the complications is established companies using crowdfunding as a pre-order platform; benefiting from the publicity and funding. (Although pre-orders would also provide funding of course.)
And - when a crowdfunding project becomes established and money is no longer required to complete the project - pledges are basically sales.
-----
And was crowdfunding ever intended to fund "risky projects"? People who fund risky projects expect high rewards - and maybe the project shouldn't be using crowdfunding. Now for sure the concept of crowdfunding was to fund things that might struggle to get funding otherwise but high risk. multi-year projects? Interesting question. I am not sure your admonishment for people to get away from crowdfunding if they can't take the risk is accurate though; I am not sure crowdfunding was ever supposed to be about "unlimited risk". Then again its a grey area.
We see Crowdfunding being exploited by companies who literally just want publicly and expose their product. But that was not the core point of crowdfunding.
How was it not intended to fund risky projects? The moment a developer comes there and NEEDS that crowdfund to ever be capable to fund the development of that project, that is a risky project because, like Paypal also argued when they made changes to their buyer protection, it is SPECULATIVE, there is no legitimate guarantee they could give you, hence the risks.
The biggest difference on crowdfunding vs pre-order is that a Pre-Order is a transaction where the company only actually takes the money after the product is delivered, while on Crowdfunding the money taken upfront and will be considered earned (and not "profit").
Yeah I'm sure it's the "entitlement" disgruntled consumers feel that's deceiving people and not the guy at the helm of a multimillion company that has constantly lied to you about when and what you're getting.
Here's the legal problem of it, when things are disclaimed, such as estimated dates for X or Y or that there could and will be design changes to product as it develops, then the information was there for the consumer, the ambiguous disclaimers are protective of a company but you can't ignore them and expect guarantees (and that is the risk we need to assume if we back early, you have the choice to fully avoid any of it by buying it when the product is released).
No, they literally knew SQ42 wasn't going to be released end of 2016 at least by middle 2016. Yet they kept taking money based on that promise. They lied to get money and no amount of spin will change that. They lied then and a few other obvious times and of course a million little misrepresentations.
As I said in another thread one of the complications is established companies using crowdfunding as a pre-order platform; benefiting from the publicity and funding. (Although pre-orders would also provide funding of course.)
And - when a crowdfunding project becomes established and money is no longer required to complete the project - pledges are basically sales.
-----
And was crowdfunding ever intended to fund "risky projects"? People who fund risky projects expect high rewards - and maybe the project shouldn't be using crowdfunding. Now for sure the concept of crowdfunding was to fund things that might struggle to get funding otherwise but high risk. multi-year projects? Interesting question. I am not sure your admonishment for people to get away from crowdfunding if they can't take the risk is accurate though; I am not sure crowdfunding was ever supposed to be about "unlimited risk". Then again its a grey area.
We see Crowdfunding being exploited by companies who literally just want publicly and expose their product. But that was not the core point of crowdfunding.
How was it not intended to fund risky projects? The moment a developer comes there and NEEDS that crowdfund to ever be capable to fund the development of that project, that is a risky project <snip>
There is risk and then there is risk. WTF? Well ....
I took part in a crowdfunding for a bike bell. There was zero risk of the bell not being delivered - the company made other bells, parts etc. so short of a meteorite strike on the company etc; when it would complete development and testing however was always at risk. And sure enough it missed its planned delivery date by a few months however.
Or crowdfund an artist to create an art book. (One GR Martin highlighted). An established, reputable artist but getting publishers these days - not easy. With enough guaranteed "sales" though nothing short of a heart attack etc. would stand in the way of it being delivered. And professional artists, by default, are used to working to deadlines. Sure enough delivered on time. OK there was a risk that you might not like it since you didn't "know" exactly what you would get.
And crowdfunding is awash with such stuff.
From funding athletes to train in the hope tha they will qualify for the Olympics - a risk they might not but the crowdfunding is for the training which again is basically risk free to getting a Baby Trump blimp in the air - the risk being it might not be allowed to fly.
Lots and lots of "low risk" - basically "risk free" - projects but stuff that would struggle to get funding otherwise. Pick a crowdfunding site and have a browse; they have stats.
Now at the other extreme:
When you have something that a) might not get delivered at all, never done before etc b) no idea of when it might be delivered as a result and c) no idea of what exactly will be delivered .... that is when you are getting into high risk territory. And in such projects as well as the "known risks" you will have "unknown risks". (Risk assessment terminology.) These are pushing the envelope.
And inbetween you will have things that are "iffy" "on the cusp" "dodgy".
Now you mention Paypal - they have decided, now, not process payments to crowdfunding. They have - ironically - done a risk assessment! And even though the vast majority of crowdfunding projects are "low risk" a few bad eggs will play havoc with their margins.
And given enough negative publicity will undermine crowdfunding in general. So - as you say later in your post (and as others have said) maybe "something more" is needed. And if the crowdfunding sites don't do it themselves calls for "regulation" will increase.
And in that context SC's success - or failure - could have an impact; although realistically only if it fails. For at the end of the day thousands and thousands of crowdfunding projects- mostly small - succeed. It is what keeps the system running.
There is risk and then there is risk. WTF? Well ....
Now you mention Paypal - they have decided, now, not process payments to crowdfunding. They have - ironically - done a risk assessment! And even though the vast majority of crowdfunding projects are "low risk" a few bad eggs will play havoc with their margins.
Excuse me, there IS risk, a Crowdfund can fail after the funds are earned for a variety of different reasons, the attempt has been made and it didn't work out, after the money has been earned, that is a risk that people always ignore because they want the pledge they make to be insured over that or any other scenario, and that is not realistic, people do not have correct expectations as to what they think vs what it is.
As for PayPal, it's not about process payments to crowdfunding (as they do), it's about not giving buyer protection to crowdfunding, Paypal didn't want to be giving one "insurance" over what is speculative and implies those type of risks, so they make the differentiation.
There is risk and then there is risk. WTF? Well ....
Now you mention Paypal - they have decided, now, not process payments to crowdfunding. They have - ironically - done a risk assessment! And even though the vast majority of crowdfunding projects are "low risk" a few bad eggs will play havoc with their margins.
Excuse me, there IS risk, a Crowdfund can fail after the funds are earned for a variety of different reasons, the attempt has been made and it didn't work out, after the money has been earned, that is a risk that people always ignore because they want the pledge they make to be insured over that or any other scenario, and that is not realistic, people do not have correct expectations as to what they think vs what it is.
As for PayPal, it's not about process payments to crowdfunding (as they do), it's about not giving buyer protection to crowdfunding, Paypal didn't want to be giving one "insurance" over what is speculative and implies those type of risks, so they make the differentiation.
Nope.
Whilst I never said that there wasn't any risk the vast majority of crowdfunded projects are - essentially - minimal risk. Hundreds and hundreds from the trivial to the worthy carry pretty much the same risk that we go to bed and get killed by an earthquake overnight. Failures - and the stats are on the sites - are few.
I have an inkling that people getting the stuff, asking themselves why they ever "bought" the stuff in the first place and then seeking to get their money back - since returns are a huge issue for retail - may well be behind PayPal's action! It is certainly not the "failures". The crowdfunding concept would have withered on the vine if this wasn't the case.
And that is what we shouldn't lose sight of.
Just because this is a gaming forum and the only "crowdfunding" stuff we discuss are multi-year gaming projects that come with bundles and bundles of risk doesn't make e.g. The Dodgy Dogs card game risky. And that was simply the first title listed under games on KS but there were many others. And under Art and so on.
So - given that most cs projects are minimal risk and deliver - simply saying "people should recognise the risk" won't help. For most people a game is a game. What goes into the making SC vs. a 2D isomorphic they neither know nor probably care. It has been called the "On-Off Switch syndrome". You turn your lights on. Do you care whether the power is coming from a low risk windmill - fast, pretty cheap to put up - or a new nuclear power station many years in the making? Most people neither know nor care.
What has been discussed in this thread however is how "failures" - few in number though they may be - could prompt calls for "action".
Maybe initiators provide a 1-5 rating against a number of risk criteria agreed withe the cs site? I don't know. Saying they should know better though - well that is why financial regulations (SEC etc) came into being. Not everyone is honest and / or wise.
No, they literally knew SQ42 wasn't going to be released end of 2016 at least by middle 2016. Yet they kept taking money based on that promise. They lied to get money and no amount of spin will change that. They lied then and a few other obvious times and of course a million little misrepresentations.
But he deserves that money! He's a Genious!
I've really never doubted that they actually want to put out the Bestest Damn Space Jam eveh. Just that they've shown themselves to be hyperbolic, wasteful, inefficient, and arrogant. Tricksy! Not the people to put in charge of one of the five most expensive game developments. But dam is CIG ever good at selling folks their own dreams.
That's why the closer it gets to be a real product, the trickier it will get. Reality is rarely as good as the dream.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Anyone who backed Star Citizen, which has received an insane amount of crowdfunding,
can no longer ask to be refunded by developer Cloud Imperium Games
(CIG). Although standard means of asking for refunds were removed
through the Star Citizen’s June 6, 2016 Terms of Service (TOS) update,
CIG stopped issuing them completely in December 2017.
Star Citizen Backer Loses in Small Claims Court to RSI
A backer of Star Citizen
who sought to see their $4500 refunded after losing faith in the
project has officially lost their case. The RSI small claims lawsuit was
tossed out by the presiding judge, moving the matter to arbitration in
spite of the fact that the backer in question offered their fiscal
support before the company changed their terms of service.
A lot of big companies are making agreements that state they can't be sued but must have the matter settled by arbitration. I saw a video on arbitration in which an arbitrator said that if you don't side with the business, they tend to not hire you for further work.
Supreme Court's arbitration ruling is another blow to consumer rights
The
U.S. Supreme Court made clear this week that, regardless of what the
Constitution says about a consumer's right to sue, businesses are
absolutely entitled to block people from banding together and taking a
dispute to court.
It was the court's latest ruling in
favor of arbitration, rather than class-action lawsuits, as a preferred
method for resolving issues between companies and their customers —
which is exactly how the business world wants it.
Mandatory
arbitration overwhelmingly favors business interests, consumer
advocates say, and prevents people from closing ranks to challenge
unfair fees and conditions.
I really do not get why binding arbitration scares so many people, many times its still a judge hearing the case even in arbitration and the only reason many companies are wanting disputes settled in arbitration is because it is WAY cheaper in legal fees and way quicker. Arbitration is actually very beneficial to the plaintiff in many cases as they are binding and not able to be appealed. In a trial a defendant with deep pockets can run you into your grave with appeal after appeal. Furthermore the federal Arbitration Act requires awards in corporate and commercial settlements to be paid within 30 days. So they can't drag it out for years paying you either.
Comments
Meanwhile, the SC fanboys have this forum pushing updates to their phones 24/7, it would almost appear that they enjoy the drama more than the game. $190 million just so they can play forum pvp, what a bargain!
Meanwhile,
Keep screeeshing haters. You can Cry, kick and shout as much as you want...
Nothing will change lol
Stay salty
I'd like to see you hold an argument once.
At least there's other posters around where can exist a discussion here and there, this is just bait trolling that the other keeps reacting to so it turns into a mess and we get yet another thread locked...
..Cake..
Before it was the "naysayers" catapulting ED against SC fans, now it's the SC fans catapulting ED against the "naysayers"... this forum PvP is just meh, beating the same dead horses for years every thread is a copy/paste of one another. --'
mmmmmmMeh.
And just to be clear, I am NOT NOW and NEVER WILL BE a fanboy of Erectile Dysfunction!
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
Have fun
Actual lawyer actually addressing if people are entitled to refunds or not, to all that is legal (in the context of US as is where he practices)
And is pretty much, people should be more responsible on this matter, when backing crowdfunding you should only pledge what you can afford to loose. That is not any unseen take, said before, Paypal itself has decided to distinguish crowdfunding from a Pre-Order, arguing that it is speculative and it involves risks the consumer must assume.
People should stop seeing crowdfunding as a pre-order platform, and ignore any risks by feeling entitled to all sorts of guarantees to act like the money you spent on something you funded is "insured". Then yes more people should then take one informed decision on either they get involved or get away from crowdfunds.
ps: but personally that crowdfunding needs its own regulations, especially against malicious practices. But as for legitimate ones, an "insurance" can't be given, that goes against the very point of crowdfunding, such as "refund rights" over something you fund, pledges will be earned hence regulation needs to fall upon what can be realistically achieved.
Screeeech
Good thing saviour Roberts took us away from all those nasty big company practices huh?
..Cake..
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Evil Roberts did it again
And - when a crowdfunding project becomes established and money is no longer required to complete the project - pledges are basically sales.
-----
And was crowdfunding ever intended to fund "risky projects"? People who fund risky projects expect high rewards - and maybe the project shouldn't be using crowdfunding.
Now for sure the concept of crowdfunding was to fund things that might struggle to get funding otherwise but high risk. multi-year projects? Interesting question. I am not sure your admonishment for people to get away from crowdfunding if they can't take the risk is accurate though; I am not sure crowdfunding was ever supposed to be about "unlimited risk". Then again its a grey area.
..Cake..
How was it not intended to fund risky projects? The moment a developer comes there and NEEDS that crowdfund to ever be capable to fund the development of that project, that is a risky project because, like Paypal also argued when they made changes to their buyer protection, it is SPECULATIVE, there is no legitimate guarantee they could give you, hence the risks.
The biggest difference on crowdfunding vs pre-order is that a Pre-Order is a transaction where the company only actually takes the money after the product is delivered, while on Crowdfunding the money taken upfront and will be considered earned (and not "profit").
Here's the legal problem of it, when things are disclaimed, such as estimated dates for X or Y or that there could and will be design changes to product as it develops, then the information was there for the consumer, the ambiguous disclaimers are protective of a company but you can't ignore them and expect guarantees (and that is the risk we need to assume if we back early, you have the choice to fully avoid any of it by buying it when the product is released).
I took part in a crowdfunding for a bike bell. There was zero risk of the bell not being delivered - the company made other bells, parts etc. so short of a meteorite strike on the company etc; when it would complete development and testing however was always at risk. And sure enough it missed its planned delivery date by a few months however.
Or crowdfund an artist to create an art book. (One GR Martin highlighted). An established, reputable artist but getting publishers these days - not easy. With enough guaranteed "sales" though nothing short of a heart attack etc. would stand in the way of it being delivered. And professional artists, by default, are used to working to deadlines. Sure enough delivered on time. OK there was a risk that you might not like it since you didn't "know" exactly what you would get.
And crowdfunding is awash with such stuff.
From funding athletes to train in the hope tha they will qualify for the Olympics - a risk they might not but the crowdfunding is for the training which again is basically risk free to getting a Baby Trump blimp in the air - the risk being it might not be allowed to fly.
Lots and lots of "low risk" - basically "risk free" - projects but stuff that would struggle to get funding otherwise. Pick a crowdfunding site and have a browse; they have stats.
Now at the other extreme:
When you have something that a) might not get delivered at all, never done before etc b) no idea of when it might be delivered as a result and c) no idea of what exactly will be delivered .... that is when you are getting into high risk territory. And in such projects as well as the "known risks" you will have "unknown risks". (Risk assessment terminology.) These are pushing the envelope.
And inbetween you will have things that are "iffy" "on the cusp" "dodgy".
Now you mention Paypal - they have decided, now, not process payments to crowdfunding. They have - ironically - done a risk assessment! And even though the vast majority of crowdfunding projects are "low risk" a few bad eggs will play havoc with their margins.
And given enough negative publicity will undermine crowdfunding in general. So - as you say later in your post (and as others have said) maybe "something more" is needed. And if the crowdfunding sites don't do it themselves calls for "regulation" will increase.
And in that context SC's success - or failure - could have an impact; although realistically only if it fails. For at the end of the day thousands and thousands of crowdfunding projects- mostly small - succeed. It is what keeps the system running.
As for PayPal, it's not about process payments to crowdfunding (as they do), it's about not giving buyer protection to crowdfunding, Paypal didn't want to be giving one "insurance" over what is speculative and implies those type of risks, so they make the differentiation.
Whilst I never said that there wasn't any risk the vast majority of crowdfunded projects are - essentially - minimal risk. Hundreds and hundreds from the trivial to the worthy carry pretty much the same risk that we go to bed and get killed by an earthquake overnight. Failures - and the stats are on the sites - are few.
I have an inkling that people getting the stuff, asking themselves why they ever "bought" the stuff in the first place and then seeking to get their money back - since returns are a huge issue for retail - may well be behind PayPal's action! It is certainly not the "failures". The crowdfunding concept would have withered on the vine if this wasn't the case.
And that is what we shouldn't lose sight of.
Just because this is a gaming forum and the only "crowdfunding" stuff we discuss are multi-year gaming projects that come with bundles and bundles of risk doesn't make e.g. The Dodgy Dogs card game risky. And that was simply the first title listed under games on KS but there were many others. And under Art and so on.
So - given that most cs projects are minimal risk and deliver - simply saying "people should recognise the risk" won't help. For most people a game is a game. What goes into the making SC vs. a 2D isomorphic they neither know nor probably care. It has been called the "On-Off Switch syndrome". You turn your lights on. Do you care whether the power is coming from a low risk windmill - fast, pretty cheap to put up - or a new nuclear power station many years in the making? Most people neither know nor care.
What has been discussed in this thread however is how "failures" - few in number though they may be - could prompt calls for "action".
Maybe initiators provide a 1-5 rating against a number of risk criteria agreed withe the cs site? I don't know. Saying they should know better though - well that is why financial regulations (SEC etc) came into being. Not everyone is honest and / or wise.
I've really never doubted that they actually want to put out the Bestest Damn Space Jam eveh. Just that they've shown themselves to be hyperbolic, wasteful, inefficient, and arrogant. Tricksy! Not the people to put in charge of one of the five most expensive game developments. But dam is CIG ever good at selling folks their own dreams.
That's why the closer it gets to be a real product, the trickier it will get. Reality is rarely as good as the dream.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.