CU Refund Update - 22 months

Kyleran

From two recent posts in the CU subreddit it appears Mark is still working through the refund request list, but saying progress is slow is quite the understatement. 

I once jokingly said a long time ago refunds were likely to round the one year mark, but there's a good chance come  Feb or Mar some folks will have been waiting over two years.

One request was submitted on Feb 15th 2020, the second on Feb 16th, 2020, with both being paid out on Dec 12th/13th, 2021 respectively.

MJ did send along this personal holiday message in one response, 

"\*\***MY NAME**\*\*, Here is your long awaited and overdue refund to Camelot Unchained that you requested. I hope you will please accept my apologies for both the delay in getting this to you as well as for the delay with Camelot Unchained.

I hope this refund finds you and your family and friends well and that you have a safe and happy Christmas/New Year's Eve and that 2022 is better than 2021 was for most of us. Thank you again for your support and patience. -Mark"

https://www.reddit.com/r/CamelotUnchained/comments/mqxyxd/camelot_unchained_refund_discussion_sticky/hofihiu?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

Slapshot1188

Mark needs to stop the silly charade and just get it done.  The bad press and ill will he has gotten due to the ridiculous refund saga far outweighs the refund costs themselves.

TheDalaiBomba

Slapshot1188 said:

Mark needs to stop the silly charade and just get it done.  The bad press and ill will he has gotten due to the ridiculous refund saga far outweighs the refund costs themselves.

I don't think there's much there to even "get it done" with.

The amount of progress made has been nothing but disappointing with these crowdfunding MMORPGs.

Honestly the biggest of them, Star Citizen, could launch with every single promised feature, and the industry would still see it as one of the worst investments in the history of video gaming based on development cost and length of development.

This genre was a bad fit for crowdfunding, imo.

olepi

I'll have to admit I don't believe in refunds. I've never asked for a refund.

If you wait until the product is released, look at the reviews, and perhaps try it out, there should be no reason for a refund. The whole idea of putting money up front for something that isn't real yet, and then asking for a refund once it comes out is absurd. In my opinion.

olepi

tzervo said:

olepi said:

I'll have to admit I don't believe in refunds. I've never asked for a refund.

If you wait until the product is released, look at the reviews, and perhaps try it out, there should be no reason for a refund. The whole idea of putting money up front for something that isn't real yet, and then asking for a refund once it comes out is absurd. In my opinion.

In this particular case guy said: "game out in 2 years or your money back". Game not out in 8 years, another game comes out with 0 players online, refunds are quite reasonable.

Why not wait the 2 years and then simply buy it? Why put money up front for something that doesn't exist?

Scot

I have to say this far more than still having the nda looks bad, it looks like the Grinch in charge of Christmas last year is still filling out the refunds.

Scot

Is it me, or is the fact the adbots name is mark just too much of a coincidence? Come on Mark get back to those refunds, no time to be on MMORPG.com.

Utinni

Don't gamble money you can't afford to lose.

Kyleran

Utinni said:

Don't gamble money you can't afford to lose.

In this case they were promised refunds, which are being paid out, albeit very slowly.

One point of order, as I recall the Kickstarter did not have a refund clause, Mark actually added that group into the eligibility pool after the initial delivery deadlines went long past.

Though tempted to refund, I still let my pledge ride somewhat because that was the original terms of the deal which I'm willing to honor.

Also, as you recommended, I did not pledge more than I was willing to lose, but if I had spent $7K like I've read some people did on other crowd funded games I'd probably be a lot less forgiving.

Slapshot1188

Kyleran said:

Utinni said:

Don't gamble money you can't afford to lose.

In this case they were promised refunds, which are being paid out, albeit very slowly.

One point of order, as I recall the Kickstarter did not have a refund clause, Mark actually added that group into the eligibility pool after the initial delivery deadlines went long past.

Though tempted to refund, I still let my pledge ride somewhat because that was the original terms of the deal which I'm willing to honor.

Also, as you recommended, I did not pledge more than I was willing to lose, but if I had spent $7K like I've read some people did on other crowd funded games I'd probably be a lot less forgiving.

Also, remember that this was about a decade ago.  Way back when we actually thought developers who had previously delivered beloved games had credibility.

bcbully

Slapshot1188 said:

Mark needs to stop the silly charade and just get it done.  The bad press and ill will he has gotten due to the ridiculous refund saga far outweighs the refund costs themselves.

They don't have the money obviously.

OldKingLog

bcbully said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Mark needs to stop the silly charade and just get it done.  The bad press and ill will he has gotten due to the ridiculous refund saga far outweighs the refund costs themselves.

They don't have the money obviously.

Silly bastards spent it all on NFT's.

Utinni

Kyleran said:

Utinni said:

Don't gamble money you can't afford to lose.

In this case they were promised refunds, which are being paid out, albeit very slowly.

One point of order, as I recall the Kickstarter did not have a refund clause, Mark actually added that group into the eligibility pool after the initial delivery deadlines went long past.

Though tempted to refund, I still let my pledge ride somewhat because that was the original terms of the deal which I'm willing to honor.

Also, as you recommended, I did not pledge more than I was willing to lose, but if I had spent $7K like I've read some people did on other crowd funded games I'd probably be a lot less forgiving.

If someone spent $7k on CU crowdfunding they probably needed to learn a life lesson anyway. That's not a healthy decision.

bcbully

OldKingLog said:

bcbully said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Mark needs to stop the silly charade and just get it done.  The bad press and ill will he has gotten due to the ridiculous refund saga far outweighs the refund costs themselves.

They don't have the money obviously.

Silly bastards spent it all on NFT's.

If they would have launched the pre-order as NFT avatars or something the gamers would be left holding the bag eer holding nothing.

Plus CU could still be making money as those NFT avatars are resold. 


Hey though, as you were.

bcbully

Stizzled said:

bcbully said:

OldKingLog said:

bcbully said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Mark needs to stop the silly charade and just get it done.  The bad press and ill will he has gotten due to the ridiculous refund saga far outweighs the refund costs themselves.

They don't have the money obviously.

Silly bastards spent it all on NFT's.

If they would have launched the pre-order as NFT avatars or something the gamers would be left holding the bag eer holding nothing.

Plus CU could still be making money as those NFT avatars are resold. 


Hey though, as you were.

That would require someone who actually wants to purchase said NFTs for this shit show. But then, speculative NFT bro's have proven they'll buy pretty much anything at almost any price.

I found this funny.
https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/stalker-2-devs-cancel-nft-plans-immediately-after-backlash-from-deleted-post-1722969/

True indeed. Again still beats being left with absolutely nothing, amiright? By all means though let devs know you would rather continue with the "gamers get nothing but a promise" model if you like. They've gotten real good at delivering on this model over the past 10 years. I'm sure they can pitch and market some more to you.



The link - 
"On December 15, GSC unveiled its plans for a ‘Stalker Metaverse’ where three players would be able to appear in-game as an NPC, complete with their likeness attached to them — but gated behind NFTs."

What does this even mean? I'm pretty sure all of us here know this quote makes no sense. Lack of understanding leads to terrible reporting like this.

Sounds like in order to do some 3 man content, maybe? Gamers would have to purchase an NFT that added players likeness? Wtf? 

Yeah good for CSG players if that was the case bad for CSG not having a clue how things work if this is the case. 

ConstantineMerus

I am a gambling man by nature, but, I like to win. I don't lose often and when I do, I'd certainly won't let it happen again, most of the time, well once, maybe, you know.

I have backed many crowdfunded projects, I guess about a dozen MMOs as well. I don't think the whole judging and blaming thing here is black and white. Of course backers are responsible for their monies. But we are still investing on an idea, not as investors, but as fans, to see that idea blossom. 

What idea we choose, and what people we choose to back, are certainly our own responsibility. If we back silly ideas and nobodies (Looking at you Elyria) then expect good things to come out of it then it would be certainly our own fault and we shouldn't really be complaining. 

But crowdfunding is still a legit platform, a profound method to get things done, and it is as old as the civilisation itself. It should be done right. And I don't mean that we should get governments involved, no. I am not interested in the legality of it. And I am certainly not interesting in the morality of it. I am only interested in the business of it.  

It is silly to blame the backers of a well-known person and a well-thought idea. That's not the backers' responsibility, it's not their fault. They did everything correct. 

It is definitely the project's fault. They have not only tainted their own name, but also tainted crowdfunding, too. 

Again, I am not interested in taking legal action or the morals of those people or why they have failed. But this needs to be said, and needs to be repeated; 

Fuck those people

bcbully

Stizzled said:

bcbully said:

Stizzled said:

bcbully said:

OldKingLog said:

bcbully said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Mark needs to stop the silly charade and just get it done.  The bad press and ill will he has gotten due to the ridiculous refund saga far outweighs the refund costs themselves.

They don't have the money obviously.

Silly bastards spent it all on NFT's.

If they would have launched the pre-order as NFT avatars or something the gamers would be left holding the bag eer holding nothing.

Plus CU could still be making money as those NFT avatars are resold. 


Hey though, as you were.

That would require someone who actually wants to purchase said NFTs for this shit show. But then, speculative NFT bro's have proven they'll buy pretty much anything at almost any price.

I found this funny.
https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/stalker-2-devs-cancel-nft-plans-immediately-after-backlash-from-deleted-post-1722969/

True indeed. Again still beats being left with absolutely nothing, amiright? By all means though let devs know you would rather continue with the "gamers get nothing but a promise" model if you like. They've gotten real good at delivering on this model over the past 10 years. I'm sure they can pitch and market some more to you.



The link - 
"On December 15, GSC unveiled its plans for a ‘Stalker Metaverse’ where three players would be able to appear in-game as an NPC, complete with their likeness attached to them — but gated behind NFTs."

What does this even mean? I'm pretty sure all of us here know this quote makes no sense. Lack of understanding leads to terrible reporting like this.

Sounds like in order to do some 3 man content, maybe? Gamers would have to purchase an NFT that added players likeness? Wtf? 

Yeah good for CSG players if that was the case bad for CSG not having a clue how things work if this is the case. 

They could have worded it better, but it means pretty much what it says.

Three people would have been able to buy their way into being an NPC in the game by purchasing that NPC as an NFT. The NPC would then share the owner's actual likeness.

Future players could then buy that NPC NFT (that would still look like the original owner) for... I guess the same reason people buy JPEGS? Cosmetic NFTs were coming in the future as well.

Yes, I do think that holding developers accountable and requesting refunds is much better than trying to sell your shame off to other players. It may be happening very slowly, but at least some backers of CU are getting refunded.

Were it all NFTs backers be left with no recourse but to hope they could screw other people over. The devs would be laughing all the way to the bank instead of having their feet to the coals.

Anyways, I'm derailing the thread with NFT bullshit. Sorry peoples.

Yeah silly idea by CSG.

What do you mean? You think Jacobs hasn't been laughing at the bank for the past 7 eer 8 years? Looks like he's done more than that. Looks like he's spent a good portion of the games liquidity. 

Bruh you nor any other gamer is holding any crowd funded game accountable. Stop the non sense.

This is the worst possible model for game development that has EVER hit gaming. 

Shame on you for acting like it's "still ok". 




edit - This is not a development model it's a scam. What makes this so bad is the pre-sale people could not do anything for YEARS. Just hold the bag and say "development takes time." while Jacobs spent their money. 

Jacbos had no vested intrest to get the game done once he was paid. If pre-sale people were offered avatar NFTs, Jacobs would have some incentive to continue to SHOW and prove because he'd recieved royalties on those secondary sales. 

Would the game be done? I don't know. I do know there would be more funds available. I do know that gamers would have a CHOICE to continue to support or sell. Instead they are sending emails asking for refunds they are not entitled to and may never receive.

nurso

tzervo said:

In this particular case guy said: "game out in 2 years or your money back". Both part of the kickstarter pitch.

Everyone who wanted out after that is already out.

nurso

ConstantineMerus said:

 It is silly to blame the backers of a well-known person and a well-thought idea. That's not the backers' responsibility, it's not their fault. They did everything correct.

It was still an idea, and ideas can fail or run into unforeseen problems. If you don't have that in mind, you're better off not spending your money on Kickstarter projects or anything like that.

nurso

tzervo said:

nurso said:

tzervo said:

In this particular case guy said: "game out in 2 years or your money back". Both part of the kickstarter pitch.

Everyone who wanted out after that is already out.

Not everyone. Some people are still waiting for their refunds. Obviously not everyone filed a refund at 2 years + 1 day. Everyone's breaking point is different.

Weren't you referring to the first (and only, since no other date was provided) missed release date in 2015?

Nilden

So the kickstarter was in 2013 the estimated release 2015 giving them a 2 year window to make the game. 

Now it looks like they couldn't even issue refunds in a 2 year time frame.

nurso

tzervo said:

I was referring to their initial promise (and from what Kyleran says I am actually wrong in that, and refunds were promised later). I was not implying that everyone was going to jump ship the first day they missed that date.

All those who stuck with it after the 2015 release date was not met must have accepted that the idea is not as easy to execute as originally thought.

By the way, there was no refund policy at the time of CU's Kickstarter. As far as I know, CU was the first and only video game on KS at the time to promise a refund.

Kyleran

nurso said:

tzervo said:

nurso said:

tzervo said:

In this particular case guy said: "game out in 2 years or your money back". Both part of the kickstarter pitch.

Everyone who wanted out after that is already out.

Not everyone. Some people are still waiting for their refunds. Obviously not everyone filed a refund at 2 years + 1 day. Everyone's breaking point is different.

Weren't you referring to the first (and only, since no other date was provided) missed release date in 2015?

Well, no promise dates besides this one.

"The company expects to announce a beta test at the end of the month, and it will likely ship the game in 2019."

https://venturebeat.com/2018/01/18/camelot-unchained-isnt-in-the-dark-ages-anymore-after-raising-7-5-million/

He held on to this date to his investors and fans until Oct 2019 when he finally walked back on the promise in a MOP interview, moving the target to 2020.

https://massivelyop.com/2019/10/31/camelot-unchained-is-about-to-host-a-halloween-state-of-the-game-episode/

Here we are, two years later, and no end in sight, 2025 isn't an unreasonable estimate based on publicly availabile info.

Quizzical

But did the projected 2015 release date explicitly specify the Gregorian calendar?  For example, if he meant 2015 in the Hindu calendar by the Shaka era, he's got about 71 years left.

olepi

Quizzical said:

But did the projected 2015 release date explicitly specify the Gregorian calendar?  For example, if he meant 2015 in the Hindu calendar by the Shaka era, he's got about 71 years left.

We do this a lot. "We'll be done at the end of March, March 45th to be exact".

BruceYee

bcbully said:

Yeah silly idea by CSG.

What do you mean? You think Jacobs hasn't been laughing at the bank for the past 7 eer 8 years? Looks like he's done more than that. Looks like he's spent a good portion of the games liquidity. 

Bruh you nor any other gamer is holding any crowd funded game accountable. Stop the non sense.

This is the worst possible model for game development that has EVER hit gaming. 

Shame on you for acting like it's "still ok". 




edit - This is not a development model it's a scam. What makes this so bad is the pre-sale people could not do anything for YEARS. Just hold the bag and say "development takes time." while Jacobs spent their money. 

Jacbos had no vested intrest to get the game done once he was paid. If pre-sale people were offered avatar NFTs, Jacobs would have some incentive to continue to SHOW and prove because he'd recieved royalties on those secondary sales. 

Would the game be done? I don't know. I do know there would be more funds available. I do know that gamers would have a CHOICE to continue to support or sell. Instead they are sending emails asking for refunds they are not entitled to and may never receive.

We as gamers were mostly in the dark though when crowdfund mmo's started(2013) while the scammer people/companies had already fully researched everything(legality) ready to take full advantage of our naivety. Even friggin' Kano gave SoL money ffs...

I guess giving people money upfront in exchange for a promise of the product being provided later wasn't such a good idea in many cases... who woulda thunk? xD