Charge Back and Refunds

MaxBacon · July 2016

SpottyGekko said:
A KS-funded project would have to be able to guarantee full refunds to everyone at any point. That is logically impossible, because the KS funds are burnt as part of the dev process. They could end up legally compelled to make refunds that they simply cannot pay. No sane dev team would accept that risk.

It's exactly this. Backing a project on KS is not any pre-order platform. And the rights and risks that come from it are different. With delays or not, asking for a KS project to refund money they already spent, is literately taking direct damage to the development process in favor of support the refund process.

I see CIG here taking the usual approach companies go with refunds outside TOS. This is why even when you charge-back companies, from Valve to EA... they will accept it because it is simply not worth it to contest it on the company-side.

Vrika said:
No, every sane dev team accepts that risk.

Oh, every sane dev team on KS provides refunds in case of project failure? Hell yeah because that's what we see on every time a project does not get to release! Let's refund everybody out of money we already spent developing our game everybody!

That's... not sane. That would be lying really if by assurance on a KS one would set the promise of refunds...

I think you are confusing this with one actual Pre-Order program on where the dev team does have to accept that risk.

Octagon7711 · July 2016

MaxBacon said:

SpottyGekko said:
A KS-funded project would have to be able to guarantee full refunds to everyone at any point. That is logically impossible, because the KS funds are burnt as part of the dev process. They could end up legally compelled to make refunds that they simply cannot pay. No sane dev team would accept that risk.
It's exactly this. Backing a project on KS is not any pre-order platform. And the rights and risks that come from it are different. With delays or not, asking for a KS project to refund money they already spent, is literately taking direct damage to the development process in favor of support the refund process.

I see CIG here taking the usual approach companies go with refunds outside TOS. This is why even when you charge-back companies, from Valve to EA... they will accept it because it is simply not worth it to contest it on the company-side.

Vrika said:
No, every sane dev team accepts that risk.
Oh, every sane dev team on KS provides refunds in case of project failure? Hell yeah because that's what we see on every time a project does not get to release! Let's refund everybody out of money we already spent developing our game everybody!

That's... not sane. That would be lying really if by assurance on a KS one would set the promise of refunds...

I think you are confusing this with one actual Pre-Order program on where the dev team does have to accept that risk.

"Backing a project on KS is not any pre-order platform."

That's exactly what it is. You pay money and get promised something in return. A tier package. A custom made digital ship. A head start. A working game. It's a trade. Who has given money and said they just wanted to give money to support the game so just keep all that stuff.

MaxBacon · July 2016

gon7711 said:
"Backing a project on KS is not any pre-order platform."

That's exactly what it is. You pay money and get promised something in return. A tier package. A custom made digital ship. A head start. A working game. It's a trade. Who has given money and said they just wanted to give money to support the game so just keep all that stuff.

It DOES NOT exclude the risks from any KS project, you like or not. That is the big difference between buying the finished game, pre-order the product, and... fund the product. I think some searches on Crowdfund and Pre-Order will also not return the same definition, much less ruled by the exact same "laws".

Even when you put money on an investment bank you expect something on return, it does not exclude the risk that you might not get the return you expected.

It's because people use Kickstarter as a Pre-Order platform, what we have today is people crying an ocean of salty tears screaming what they are entitled to, from even projects that live up to be 99% of what they promised, there will be people screaming that they want a refund because it isn't 100% of the promised.

I have never backed a game with that expectation, without understanding the risks that come with it. The people who use KS as this pre-order platform where you expect 100% of all the project was described as, on the exact date it was said to be delivered, then leave KS and start properly Pre-Ordering games, because you're doing it on the wrong place! O.o

Arglebargle · July 2016

Pretty sure CIG has been operating legally as a business for quite a while, and not under whatever laws cover 'donations'. The original Kickstarter money really shouldn't be available for refund. There's a set of rules there, already set up. After that, CIG needs to handle their business as a business.

As customers become more aware of the corporate shenanigans and incompetence, they have the ability to bail on the project. And they are.

Kefo · July 2016

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

You're reply while well written falls apart when you come to realize that CIG can call this crowdfunding all they want but they have been selling digital items in their own online store for a while now. Also there's a difference between charity and crowdfunding/selling digital assets. I'd give the kid money because it would make me feel good to help out cancer research and to see the kid helping out as well. I don't give money to companies out of the kindness of my heart, I give it to them in exchange for something else.

Those who put in for Kickstarter you can call it a pledge but in my mind when you transition to your own online store selling assets it's no longer a pledge and I'm inclined to think the DA is thinking the same thing since they are now gaining some interest in all this.

Backers were putting up with CIG's constant changing of the goalposts with their TOS changes and moving back the date of 12 months to 18 months. After it was removed altogether I think it was the final straw for some so they are now demanding CIG adhere to the promises they originally made.

What accountability do you want the community to show? That they will happily shut up and bend over to take it when they are told that CIG is refusing to adhere to its own TOS or the consumer protection laws? I encourage you to write letters to the DA defending CIG's honor and they will probably take them all and file them away into the "don't give a shit category". They will probably be looking to see if CIG is violating consumer rights and if they find anything they will dig deeper.

Lol, digital assets or not, you know what you're getting into. I'm really sorry, but the claim of ignorance should be gone for this project. You know what you're getting into, you know what you ARE into.

What does it have to do with "taking it"? As a backer, you are well aware of the risks at this point, so you're acting maliciously against anyone else who is backing the project.

As far as the DA's office is concerned, I did write them a letter. It was not with regards to CIG, it was with regards to those who have taken it upon themselves to act maliciously against a company. In addition, it was about department policies and, apparently, investigators encouraging complainants to have others file complaints. By this time, if they don't have enough information or complaints to actually do something, is this simply not inciting? It's actually encouraging bad behavior and Internet witch hunts against a company with 300 employees. So it's a question of policy. Are you asking people to go out on the Internet and start riots over causes or are they actually going to do their job and to their due diligence?

Sorry, while I agree that policies surrounding crowdfunding DO need to change, the current direction for those changes seems to be leaning towards policy changes which would discourage crowdfunding altogether. Honestly, if the AG or DCBA is at all interested, walk into their offices and do a forensic audit. Close the fucking book on the case for now and in the future. Then deny future requests for refunds, if it's determined they are working towards a product. Why? Because the customer isn't always right!! If they did that, I would be happier than a pig in shit. Whether the outcome be good or bad, the overall outcome for crowdfunding would be good.

I'm not arguing that ignorance is an excuse on this project because it has been out long enough so any NEW backers shouldn't have a leg to stand on. Older backers however were given a promise of a game by a certain date with a stipulation that if it missed its mark by 18, originally 12, then they would offer refunds and provide full accountability. That time frame has come and gone and to try and circumvent it CIG edited the TOS to remove that clause.

You are aware of the risks at this point and risks when you back any KS game but that doesn't change the fact that CIG has been falling flat on its face with their promises and is trying to weasel out of their original TOS. That's the taking it I'm speaking of. We have your money and we know what our TOS used to say but screw it we wont honor it because crowdfunding! Backers asking for money back they were promised is not acting maliciously its calling CIG on their bull.

Now if people are spending money and then issuing chargebacks to do it maliciously then CIG needs to investigate them for fraud. I'm not talking about those people because they are scum anyway and should be strung up regards of what company they do it to. Writing the DA's office about people acting maliciously against a company might stop and make them look more closely at any evidence they are gathering but honestly if they aren't doing that already then they don't deserve their jobs.

I don't think policy changes would discourage crowdfunding altogether but it would stop the scammers and con artists from opening campaigns (not saying CIG is so put away the torches) and it would probably make joe blow think twice about starting something they are incapable of finishing. I would love for them to go in and perform a forensic audit but something tells me its not as easy as walking in the front door and demanding all financial records.

Vrika · July 2016

MaxBacon said:
Vrika said:
No, every sane dev team accepts that risk.
Oh, every sane dev team on KS provides refunds in case of project failure? Hell yeah because that's what we see on every time a project does not get to release! Let's refund everybody out of money we already spent developing our game everybody!

That's... not sane. That would be lying really if by assurance on a KS one would set the promise of refunds...

They don't need to actually give the refunds. They just need to bankrupt the company if they fail.

Zano did that after raising $3.6 million in Kickstarter and failing to deliver
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9759834/zano-drone-bankrupt-liquidation-kickstarter

A project to create watch went to bankrupt after raising $1 million and failing to deliver
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/5/11595666/cst-01-kickstarter-dead-no-money-back

Creator of Woolfe: The Red Hood Diaries went bankrupt and was unable to fulfill Kickstarter rewards
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/this-dev-goes-bankrupt-cant-fulfill-kickstarter-pr/1100-6429630/

What happens if Star Citizen runs out of money? According to RSI's Terms of Service, that would mean RSI has earned your pledge and it's "become non-refundable to the extent that it is used for the Pledge Item Cost and/or the Game Cost". If they fail to deliver the game, they'll also need to "post an audited cost accounting on the Website to fully explain the use of the amounts paid for Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost."

After doing that, RSI and its owners have fulfilled their responsibilities to backers who lost their money. If RSI's Terms of Service are followed, Chris Roberts is then free to sell the unfinished game and all its assets, and add the sale price to his personal property as his profit for failing the project.

Kefo · July 2016

MaxBacon said:
Vrika said:
No, every sane dev team accepts that risk.
Oh, every sane dev team on KS provides refunds in case of project failure? Hell yeah because that's what we see on every time a project does not get to release! Let's refund everybody out of money we already spent developing our game everybody!

That's... not sane. That would be lying really if by assurance on a KS one would set the promise of refunds...

I think you are confusing this with one actual Pre-Order program on where the dev team does have to accept that risk.

Cherry picking for the win there. Read the rest of their reply and you will see that's not what they said at all

MaxBacon · July 2016

Vrika said:
They don't need to actually give the refunds. They just need to bankrupt the company if they fail.

Zano did that after raising $3.6 million in Kickstarter and failing to deliver
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9759834/zano-drone-bankrupt-liquidation-kickstarter

A project to create watch went to bankrupt after raising $1 million and failing to deliver
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/5/11595666/cst-01-kickstarter-dead-no-money-back

Creator of Woolfe: The Red Hood Diaries went bankrupt and was unable to fulfill Kickstarter rewards
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/this-dev-goes-bankrupt-cant-fulfill-kickstarter-pr/1100-6429630/

What happens if Star Citizen runs out of money? According to RSI's Terms of Service, that would mean RSI has earned your pledge and it's "become non-refundable to the extent that it is used for the Pledge Item Cost and/or the Game Cost". If they fail to deliver the game, they'll also need to "post an audited cost accounting on the Website to fully explain the use of the amounts paid for Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost."

After doing that, RSI and its owners have fulfilled their responsibilities to backers who lost their money. If RSI's Terms of Service are followed, Chris Roberts is then free to sell the unfinished game and all its assets, and add the money to his personal property as his profit for failing the project.

They haven't failed. Side of the massive drama, over-dramatization and crusades to make everything look terrible bad and "apocalyptic" on CIG's side and the Star Citizen development.

The game keeps going side of all of that drama. CIG also has a continuous source of income via the Crowdfund that they can use to whatever they want as that money is not locked to anything in particular. The company continuously keeps growing as well.

The rest of failure or not, clear is bankruptcy is bankruptcy, even banks go bankrupt and make you will loose your money (and we have experience with this on our country). And that's nothing but one of the risks of backing projects Kickstarter or any other similar platform.

And i wouldn't bet my money any day that SC would fail by bankrupcy, much before would they rush the game's release, create one revenue loop independent of the liabilities of the Crowdfund and keep themselves liable to whatever features they delayed to post-release to the older backers.

GrumpyHobbit · July 2016

Arglebargle said:

Pretty sure CIG has been operating legally as a business for quit a while, and not under whatever laws cover 'donations'. The original Kickstarter money really shouldn't be available for refund. There's a set of rules there, already set up. After that, CIG needs to handle their business as a business.

As customers become more aware of the corporate shenanigans and incompetence, they have the ability to bail on the project. And they are.

It is a rough road being taken by some here.

It seems their aim is to put the business into a financially tricky position by giving it money for development then taking that money out once the money has been spent.

Can you imagine the backlash if these losers get their way should CIG go bankrupt because of all fake donors withdrawing their money. Not only would these 'community' type gamers be destroying the dream game for the other backers but they would also be financially destroying their investment. Destroying another persons dreams and investments are a pretty dickish move.

If CIG failed due to not being able to produce the goods that would be annoying...if it failed because a group of angry Goons caused it through fake donations....it could lead to actual physical violence on an epic scale.

CrazKanuk · July 2016

Arglebargle said:

Pretty sure CIG has been operating legally as a business for quit a while, and not under whatever laws cover 'donations'. The original Kickstarter money really shouldn't be available for refund. There's a set of rules there, already set up. After that, CIG needs to handle their business as a business.

As customers become more aware of the corporate shenanigans and incompetence, they have the ability to bail on the project. And they are.

I would tend to disagree. Again, I think this is more a case of putting a company in a vacuum than anything else. What's the yardstick? Why does Kickstarter get an exception? What if Kickstarter all of a sudden opened up to allow you to continue to collect following your campaign? You do understand that nearly 100% of companies continue to accept funding outside of their KS campaign, right? So why is CIG THE problem? If people want to raise this as an issue with policy for the FTC, I'm cool with that, go for it. Please, let's do that. Then, at least everyone is operating by the same rules. However, that's not the case right now, and what people claim are "shenanigans" for CIG are praised elsewhere, like with Pantheon, where they are charging monthly subscriptions for something that has no definitive timeline.

Octagon7711 · July 2016

It started as one game that became two that become additional content. Now it's a regular series of updates that could go on for who knows how long. Every game launches before it's ready because Bosses know if you wait for it to be finished it never will. After a certain amount of time the game becomes outdated which creates an infinite loop of update cycles. I think the best thing to do is start with one game, produce that game, then start on another. It's hard enough to create a single good game let alone several at the same time.

dsmart · July 2016

CrazKanuk said:

Turrican187 said:

CrazKanuk said:
[...]

Let me ask you this, if you were to pledge money to a 10 year-old who was supposed to run in a marathon for cancer research, and they didn't finish the race, would you ask for your money back? I feel quite confident that you wouldn't. Would you go on some sort of online attack against the youngster because they didn't finish the race? Probably not.

[...]

Indeed because you can compare a charity event with a profit orientated multi million dollar company ...
This is the worst, unethically troll posting I have read in years.

Really? Is it? It seems you have a misunderstanding of crowdfunding. I might encourage you to read up on it here

What's unethical is the fact that there are people who are, literally, maliciously buying and charging back purchases in an attempt to harm a company. Also, not only does the Internet encourage it, but they endorse it. Honestly, I'm very happy I'm not an American. Unfortunately it's descended into a country interested more in the court of public opinion than actually proving something using factual evidence.

Right. And you have irrefutable EVIDENCE of this, right?

nope, didn't think so.

Here's the deal.

1) The State and Fed officials have made it clear that in crowd-funding, there is an expectation of delivery.

e.g. this was less than a year ago. there are others by the FTC

http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-makes-crowdfunded-company-pay-shady-deal

2) If CIG didn't think that refunds were something they couldn't do, they would NEVER have put it in the ToS that THEY wrote. NOBODY made them write it. They used it as a carrot stick.

3) They started refusing refunds once the 18 (was 12) months deadline for refunds from lack of delivery of the project in Nov 2014, rolled around. Most challenged them; and when push came to shove, they refunded.

4) Then after it started looking like a scam and with no intentions of ever delivering what was promised (MVP anyone?), the refund requests increased.

What this person did was follow the guidelines I wrote up and he went straight to the authorities; who agreed with him.

http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/07/star-citizen-this-war-of-mine/comment-page-1/#comment-3465

What people don’t realize is that this is precedent setting. I have ALWAYS said that their ToS would NEVER survive ANY legal challenge.

This was $3K they could have refunded quietly and be done with it. but no.

The fact that they think it’s OK to refuse backers access to a game they PAID for, then REFUSE to refund when they reject a ToS change is alarming to me.

And so stuff like this happens.

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/07/14/one-star-citizen-backer-got-a-refund-with-the-help-of-the-la-attorney-general-ftc-and-dcba

http://www.pcinvasion.com/star-citizen-backer-earns-3k-refund-contacting-us-district-attorney

http://www.pcgamesn.com/star-citizen/star-citizen-refunds-ftc

There is no way to spin it. They made a promise to backers. They broke it. They are due refunds. Simple.

And my guess is that very soon when the lawsuit becomes public and CIG/RSI are forced to honor a ToS in which they were to provide refunds *and* financial accounting as promised, that's when this whole thing ends.

It's coming. The E.L.E. is in full swing.

EDIT:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/07/14/star-citizen-refund/

http://gameranx.com/updates/id/64881/article/star-citizen-backer-gets-refund-but-needed-u-s-governments-help/

http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/07/star-citizen-backer-recovers-3000-after-contacting-attorney-general/7448/

Erillion · July 2016

Feel free to tell us more about "the lawsuit".

Because Streetrollers case is no lawsuit.

Have fun

Oriphus · July 2016

How is the hate campaign going?

Erillion · July 2016

Oriphus said:

How is the hate campaign going?

In my opinion getting frentic with little results as the clock is ticking down to the expected news at
GamesCom 2016 in August and CitizenCon in October when CIG will show things that
some people have claimed to be "impossible" and "faked".

Expected news:
GamesCom --> Squadron 42 trailer, especially featuring bridge of the Idris (the booth at GamesCom will be a replica of an Idris bridge)
CitizenCon --> Bengal carrier trailer
one or the other --> procedurally generated planetary surface trailer
one or the other --> Shubin mIning station (final version) from Squadron 42 (maybe with game scenes)
one or the other --> Mark Hammill scenes from SQ42
one or the other --> complete Stanton system for PU (Persistent Universe) showcasing full 64 bit engine

Have fun

mr1602 · July 2016

Erillion said:

Feel free to tell us more about "the lawsuit".

Because Streetrollers case is no lawsuit.

Have fun

It is worse than a lawsuit. Authorities are now involved.

CrazKanuk · July 2016

dsmart said:

CrazKanuk said:

Turrican187 said:

CrazKanuk said:
[...]

Let me ask you this, if you were to pledge money to a 10 year-old who was supposed to run in a marathon for cancer research, and they didn't finish the race, would you ask for your money back? I feel quite confident that you wouldn't. Would you go on some sort of online attack against the youngster because they didn't finish the race? Probably not.

[...]

Indeed because you can compare a charity event with a profit orientated multi million dollar company ...
This is the worst, unethically troll posting I have read in years.

Really? Is it? It seems you have a misunderstanding of crowdfunding. I might encourage you to read up on it here

What's unethical is the fact that there are people who are, literally, maliciously buying and charging back purchases in an attempt to harm a company. Also, not only does the Internet encourage it, but they endorse it. Honestly, I'm very happy I'm not an American. Unfortunately it's descended into a country interested more in the court of public opinion than actually proving something using factual evidence.

Right. And you have irrefutable EVIDENCE of this, right?

nope, didn't think so.

Here's the deal.

1) The State and Fed officials have made it clear that in crowd-funding, there is an expectation of delivery.

e.g. this was less than a year ago. there are others by the FTC

http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-makes-crowdfunded-company-pay-shady-deal

2) If CIG didn't think that refunds were something they couldn't do, they would NEVER have put it in the ToS that THEY wrote. NOBODY made them write it. They used it as a carrot stick.

3) They started refusing refunds once the 18 (was 12) months deadline for refunds from lack of delivery of the project in Nov 2014, rolled around. Most challenged them; and when push came to shove, they refunded.

4) Then after it started looking like a scam and with no intentions of ever delivering what was promised (MVP anyone?), the refund requests increased.

What this person did was follow the guidelines I wrote up and he went straight to the authorities; who agreed with him.

http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/07/star-citizen-this-war-of-mine/comment-page-1/#comment-3465
What people don’t realize is that this is precedent setting. I have ALWAYS said that their ToS would NEVER survive ANY legal challenge.
This was $3K they could have refunded quietly and be done with it. but no.
The fact that they think it’s OK to refuse backers access to a game they PAID for, then REFUSE to refund when they reject a ToS change is alarming to me.
And so stuff like this happens.

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/07/14/one-star-citizen-backer-got-a-refund-with-the-help-of-the-la-attorney-general-ftc-and-dcba

http://www.pcinvasion.com/star-citizen-backer-earns-3k-refund-contacting-us-district-attorney

http://www.pcgamesn.com/star-citizen/star-citizen-refunds-ftc

There is no way to spin it. They made a promise to backers. They broke it. They are due refunds. Simple.

And my guess is that very soon when the lawsuit becomes public and CIG/RSI are forced to honor a ToS in which they were to provide refunds *and* financial accounting as promised, that's when this whole thing ends.

It's coming. The E.L.E. is in full swing.

Youre playing a dangerous game considering that the status of your project which was due out in 2014 is still under development. This is the point. We can't have one be guilty without holding all accountable, which essentially means the demise of crowd funding, to the joy of some, I'm sure.

Honestly, though, if this does come to pass then I hope that you are treated equally harshly.

MaxBacon · July 2016

mr1602 said:

Erillion said:

Feel free to tell us more about "the lawsuit".

Because Streetrollers case is no lawsuit.

Have fun

It is worse than a lawsuit. Authorities are now involved.

????????? O.o

adamlotus75 · July 2016

CIG laid out the terms by which someone can ask for a refund. 3000 bucks is a lot of money - I think it's fair to say that Streetroller must have been extremely enthusiastic about the project for a good long time. I bet it required a major change in mindset to suddenly want a refund.

People will not wait forever for SC. Goodwill does not last forever. If CIG want to keep hold of the money they have to deliver, and quickly as the competition has arrived and are way ahead of CIGs timeline.

mr1602 · July 2016

MaxBacon said:

mr1602 said:

Erillion said:

Feel free to tell us more about "the lawsuit".

Because Streetrollers case is no lawsuit.

Have fun

It is worse than a lawsuit. Authorities are now involved.

????????? O.o

Read the story on my signature. Rockpapershotgun has the same story as well. DCBA is 'building a case' against CIG.

Xeno.phon · July 2016

mr1602 said:

MaxBacon said:

mr1602 said:

Erillion said:

Feel free to tell us more about "the lawsuit".

Because Streetrollers case is no lawsuit.

Have fun

It is worse than a lawsuit. Authorities are now involved.

????????? O.o

Read the story on my signature. Rockpapershotgun has the same story as well. DCBA is 'building a case' against CIG.

Dont you mean "A bunch of idiots that have no concept of what crowdfunding is are trying to figure out what is right and wrong" Really has nothing to do with RSI, in fact if this was a real world product that you pre purchased despite not being given a delivery date the courts would call you an idiot and throw you out.

Until RSI cancels their development and or stop being able to prove progress the only rights backers have is to wait like adults for the product they ordered and didnt get a delivery date for.

MaxBacon · July 2016

mr1602 said:
Read the story on my signature. Rockpapershotgun has the same story as well. DCBA is 'building a case' against CIG.

It really doesn't change my ????? rewarding your first comment.

Anyway, the part "We had about an hour long conversation, where I detailed everything about CIG and how I felt it was a scam" ...

If that is the reason behind supposed case against CIG from such conversation with the investigator, then i would put money in how the Goons are going to end up disappointed when they find out SC is a game actively under development that has been through delays and not a scam. :pleased:

Burntvet · July 2016

Xeno.phon said:

mr1602 said:

MaxBacon said:

mr1602 said:

Erillion said:

Feel free to tell us more about "the lawsuit".

Because Streetrollers case is no lawsuit.

Have fun

It is worse than a lawsuit. Authorities are now involved.

????????? O.o

Read the story on my signature. Rockpapershotgun has the same story as well. DCBA is 'building a case' against CIG.

Dont you mean "A bunch of idiots that have no concept of what crowdfunding is are trying to figure out what is right and wrong" Really has nothing to do with RSI, in fact if this was a real world product that you pre purchased despite not being given a delivery date the courts would call you an idiot and throw you out.

Until RSI cancels their development and or stop being able to prove progress the only rights backers have is to wait like adults for the product they ordered and didnt get a delivery date for.

Except for the fact that SC stopped being about "crowdfunding" and became all about "pre-purchasing" product. Which people have been doing. For years.

And now, because CIG/Roberts has not lived up to the promises made, people are exercising their rights under available consumer protection laws to get refunds.

The only reason they "gave" this guy his money back was so that his complaint with the CA AG and FTC would no longer be active.

Too bad for them that the CA AG is going to investigate, anyway.

THAT is the thing CIG wanted least of all in this whole mess.

dsmart · July 2016

Youre playing a dangerous game considering that the status of your project which was due out in 2014 is still under development. This is the point. We can't have one be guilty without holding all accountable, which essentially means the demise of crowd funding, to the joy of some, I'm sure.

Honestly, though, if this does come to pass then I hope that you are treated equally harshly.

You're cute.

Comparing a self-funded early access (nope - not the same as crowd-funded, look it up) game by an indie dev who has released over a dozen games over a two decade period to this over-ambitious liability-laden dumpster fire is always hilarious.

There's nothing to judge. Line Of Defense, like ALL my games, is coming along just fine and just as it was designed from the onset.

No comparison.

Stick to the subject at hand: the on-going Star Citizen train wreck.

SpottyGekko · July 2016

Looks to me like this witch-hunt is becoming a bit frantic.

Are some people getting scared that SC may actually produce something tangible in the near future ?

Howdy, Stranger!

Charge Back and Refunds

Comments

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Charge Back and Refunds

Comments

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey