Furthermore the only people hurt by arbitration are lawyers and so they are posting these stories in the media about how its so bad for the consumer yada yada.. not to mention IF a company commits a criminal act or fraud it nulls the consumer contract and the arbitration clause. So a class action can still be filed in cases where bad faith can be established. Also take into account arbitration does not limit the size of the settlement the largest award to date in arbitration is more than $50 billion.
Furthermore the only people hurt by arbitration are lawyers and so they are posting these stories in the media about how its so bad for the consumer yada yada.. not to mention IF a company commits a criminal act or fraud it nulls the consumer contract and the arbitration clause. So a class action can still be filed in cases where bad faith can be established. Also take into account arbitration does not limit the size of the settlement the largest award to date in arbitration is more than $50 billion.
The people hurt by arbitration is the consumer. If the arbitrator wants to get hired again then its usually in their best interest to side with the company cause who wants to hire someone that causes you to lose money?
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.
Okay your point is irrelevant here, the fact most take fewer risks hence the probability of failure is smaller does not change the risks of crowdfunding, the same way if you invest in a low-risk investment it doesn't change the risks of investment, there is no differentiation there, game dev is known as being risky because of how unpredictable it is, a big chunk of game dev crowdfunds do fall on controversy because of it, when it's not delayed it's because what's delivered differs from what was pitched (aside of a few actual scams that happened), it's because of how frequently that happens I shall keep defending "people should recognize the risk", if not, they should only buy a game once it's delivered and avoid that whole process.
The people hurt by arbitration is the consumer. If the arbitrator wants to get hired again then its usually in their best interest to side with the company cause who wants to hire someone that causes you to lose money?
Welcome to America ^^
US is ridiculous on this sort of things and it's been only getting worse, such as the supreme court killing even the ability for workers to go after their employer with class actions, forcing arbitration.
"As Americans take up populism, the supreme court embraces business."
I've backed dozens of crowdfunded projects... most of them have been released as promised and on time. 3 of them weren't (one of those is SC). A few of them have been absolutely exceptional in the way they inform and treat the backers. It's experiences with projects like those that show me how greedy and incompetent CIG is.
I've backed dozens of crowdfunded projects... most of them have been released as promised and on time. 3 of them weren't (one of those is SC). A few of them have been absolutely exceptional in the way they inform and treat the backers. It's experiences with projects like those that show me how greedy and incompetent CIG is.
Hmmm
A lot of the larger crowdfunded games have been stuck on years of delays, and did so until release. From Camelot Unchained, to Crowfall, to SC, (SOTA now released but same story) and I have little doubt CoE is up to face the same reality, with perhaps even AoC, DU currently pre-alpha most likely will be pushed back beyond this year as well, Pantheon is "when it's done" so no prospects of a release yet (like SC pretty much)... I would say most of them (aka Crowdfunded MMO's) are being hit by the same reality currently, not the opposite.
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.
Okay your point is irrelevant here, the fact most take fewer risks hence the probability of failure is smaller does not change the risks of crowdfunding, the same way if you invest in a low-risk investment it doesn't change the risks of investment, there is no differentiation there, game dev is known as being risky because of how unpredictable it is, a big chunk of game dev crowdfunds do fall on controversy because of it, when it's not delayed it's because what's delivered differs from what was pitched (aside of a few actual scams that happened), it's because of how frequently that happens I shall keep defending "people should recognize the risk", if not, they should only buy a game once it's delivered and avoid that whole process.
You haven't looked at the projects listed as games on the crowdfunding sites have you? If you did you would form the impression - based on how many there were - that they were not "risky". Which is because most are "trivial". And most deliver what they set out to pretty much when they say.
Lets take your view though that all crowdfunding, just like crossing the roads, is like investments. Investment advertisements, in most countries, carry prominent warnings. Wgich suggests that crowdfunding should do the same.
Since so many cs initiatives are trivial however I would prefer some sort of ranking though.
You haven't looked at the projects listed as games on the crowdfunding sites have you? If you did you would form the impression - based on how many there were - that they were not "risky". Which is because most are "trivial". And most deliver what they set out to pretty much when they say.
Lets take your view though that all crowdfunding, just like crossing the roads, is like investments. Investment advertisements, in most countries, carry prominent warnings. Wgich suggests that crowdfunding should do the same.
Since so many cs initiatives are trivial however I would prefer some sort of ranking though.
Most of them are trivial, when I talk this I mean projects like the games most talked around this site, we're talking projects like Star Citizen, Crowflal, Camelot Unchained, Ashes of Creation, Chronicles of Elyria, Dual Universe, etc... all of them aren't trivial, hence why the risks involved always hit the same nails, either deadlines are missed, design chances hit the project as it develops, etc...
A ranking doesn't make sense as anyone can easily see if they are getting into is something trivial or a large-scale project, I think we all know what category would crowdfunded MMO's fall into.
So, should we feel bad for the people who put hundreds of $ for jpegs like the Idris or banu merchant and can't get a refund, or is it good for star citizen?
Is it ok that people who gave money for jpegs of ships they'll never get to fly (idris, javelin, etc) can't get a refund?
Why isn't? CIG has given no-question-asked refunds for years, they changed their policy that ends the refund policy in 2016 yet they still continued refunding anyway until the beginning of 2018 when have enforced their policy, so there was more than enough time for anyone who wasn't okay with either missed deadlines, or design changes or whatever, to have gotten their money back.
And yes, they'll get to fly those ships when they added, like with every other ship
You're pulling another nostrasmartanus prediction out of nowhereville lol
Crowdfunding is not pre-ordering. Deal with it.
Any pledge made is ultimately to help the development of the game as a whole, the rest is just a bonus. It says right there when you back. It's how crowdfunding works.
If you have problem waiting why give money in advance for assets in the concept stage instead of sticking to the ones playable?
Every feature and content being developed now will be available to anyone who has a game package. Which is nice because that way the comunity is not divided from the start.
MaxBacon said: ...so there was more than enough time for anyone who wasn't okay with either missed deadlines, or design changes or whatever, to have gotten their money back.
No not really. Take the guy waiting eagerly for 3.0 at the end of 2016 which never arrives, he probably thinks CIG deserve additional time as there's so much cool stuff coming in 3.0 and its following patches.
Then 3.0 arrives at the end of 2017 and it's a limp dick, despite the additional year of development it contains far less than originally planned and to top it off, it runs like a turd. Just to add insult to injury CIG now say "haha sucker no refund for you!" despite the guy being a good little boy and waiting patiently...
No not really. Take the guy waiting eagerly for 3.0 at the end of 2016 which never arrives, he probably thinks CIG deserve additional time as there's so much cool stuff coming in 3.0 and its following patches.
Then 3.0 arrives at the end of 2017 and it's a limp dick, despite the additional year of development it contains far less than originally planned and to top it off, it runs like a turd. Just to add insult to injury CIG now say "haha sucker no refund for you!" despite the guy being a good little boy and waiting patiently...
3.0 doesn't matter much to me on that aspect as it was open for weeks before release we all could see what's up, if we are real here, CIG updated the ToS with the no-refunds past 14/30 days in 2016, so on that moment we would have already expected they would start enforcing their policy, they could have done an sudden stop the moment they updated their policy but they didn't, so there was a transition and that period up to the end of 2017 should have been considered a "grace period" for anyone who didn't want to put up the risk because the policy would eventually be enforced sooner or later (this was what Crowfall did until I think 2016).
Ahhh, and here is a screenshot of the message. Interestingly enough they call it a pledge and not a donation, could there be a legal difference? But, as you can see, all pledges are final and no refunds are given, at all.
Seems pretty clear to me.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Here's the problem... They've said everything is final blah blah blah etc.. but if that's the case then why have some people received refunds?
If you ask me CIG opened themselves up to this shit when they gave others refunds but now arn't giving refunds anymore. If everything was suppose to be final then that's what it shoulda been PERIOD.
They shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets and doesn't get refunds. CIG opened the can of worms themselves and with how long it's taking them to get a game going like.. it's pretty ridiculous not to mention they had to completely start over pretty much because Unreal Engine didn't do what they wanted so now they use the Amazon backend stuff
We can call bullshit on this.. I don't know how moving engines doesn't slow down a game.. unless EVERYTHING can be ported over to the new engine without any hassles which lets be real here.. I highly doubt everything they'd made ported over to the new Amazon's Lumberyard without a hitch.. I'm going say I'm 100% sure that there was obviously some things that broke and threw errors and bugs etc.. which of course those have to be fixed and tested so on n so forth which this is what we call a delay I mean even just the engine change alone was a delay technically because the time they spend moving everything over importing all the objects etc.. that all takes time which they could of been using to develop the game more
Whether it was a small or big delay it's still a delay technically... just being honest even though it seems stupid it's still a fact.
Ahhh, and here is a screenshot of the message. Interestingly enough they call it a pledge and not a donation, could there be a legal difference? But, as you can see, all pledges are final and no refunds are given, at all.
Seems pretty clear to me.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Here's the problem... They've said everything is final blah blah blah etc.. but if that's the case then why have some people received refunds?
If you ask me CIG opened themselves up to this shit when they gave others refunds but now arn't giving refunds anymore. If everything was suppose to be final then that's what it shoulda been PERIOD.
They shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets and doesn't get refunds. CIG opened the can of worms themselves and with how long it's taking them to get a game going like.. it's pretty ridiculous not to mention they had to completely start over pretty much because Unreal Engine didn't do what they wanted so now they use the Amazon backend stuff
We can call bullshit on this.. I don't know how moving engines doesn't slow down a game.. unless EVERYTHING can be ported over to the new engine without any hassles which lets be real here.. I highly doubt everything they'd made ported over to the new Amazon's Lumberyard without a hitch.. I'm going say I'm 100% sure that there was obviously some things that broke and threw errors and bugs etc.. which of course those have to be fixed and tested so on n so forth which this is what we call a delay I mean even just the engine change alone was a delay technically because the time they spend moving everything over importing all the objects etc.. that all takes time which they could of been using to develop the game more
Whether it was a small or big delay it's still a delay technically... just being honest even though it seems stupid it's still a fact.
Maybe its better to make some research before parachute droping into a discussion and mix important facts like when, why and what game engine was used.
CIG started with CryEngine 3.5 (back in 2011 there wasn't as many options as today) and worked up from there adapting the engine to it's needs as it went.
Around 2014/15 Crytek studio in germany was having problems paying their staff and a lot of them left Crytek to join CIG.
Thanks to the millions received by backers CIG was able to not only hire them but build a studio in their city (Frankfurt) and allowed the main game engine enginers (some of them wrote the original cryengine code) to dwelve into ways to not only improove the current engine features but expand its possibilites.
Not only the graphical fidelity of the engine, (which was already very good from the start) was pushed forward but the scale of it too with the procedural technology.
Which opened the possibility of having seamless landings on planets without restrictions instead of the initial planed limited locations acessible by loading screen.
CIG took that route and adapted development accordingly.
By then Crytek financial problems kept going who led them to sell their engine license to Amazon (seeing the same opportunity Chris Roberts saw back in 2011).
Amazon called it's newly aquired CryEngine, Lumberyard and worked on its network integration with their massive server network.
CIG was looking for partners to host their single universe game and Amazon had entered the gaming business wanting to make a statement so the deal was perfect for both.
Transition was smooth enough that cig has now servers constantly spining instances of 50+50 / players+ships cap in the persistent universe and star marine / arena commander.
As for the refunds... CIG handle them of goodwil, some people tried to abuse of that goodwill so they had to act accordingly.
It's bad that because some rotten apples others have to pay but that's how things work.
MaxBacon said: 3.0 doesn't matter much to me on that aspect as it was open for weeks before release we all could see what's up, if we are real here, CIG updated the ToS with the no-refunds past 14/30 days in 2016, so on that moment we would have already expected they would start enforcing their policy, they could have done an sudden stop the moment they updated their policy but they didn't, so there was a transition and that period up to the end of 2017 should have been considered a "grace period" for anyone who didn't want to put up the risk because the policy would eventually be enforced sooner or later (this was what Crowfall did until I think 2016).
That might be so but my example is just showing that it's not about people having plenty of time, there are many reasons why they might not have sought a refund. We can't say it's their fault for not acting quick enough when they were being loyal to the project or waiting to see what was actually delivered instead of acting on a hunch.
Roberts better hope a lot of backers don't decide to take them to arbitration. It would financially hurt company big time in the pocketbook. One or two is no big deal, but if a group of 20 hit them at the same time it would be bad.
I had to go to arbitration twice and won both without a lawyer. But this guy never had a chance at winning. Just waited too long.
“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
―
George Carlin
Humm from armchair dev's to armchair lawyers and financial psychic's imput...
I'm sure Roberts is trembling with fear lol....
It’s called common sense not armchair anything. If a bunch of people all decide to goto arbritration to try to get their money back then CIG has to pay for that arbritrator every single time.
CIG could win the case in their favour but they could start losing money because of the amount of cases they need to deal with
Comments
Welcome to America ^^
US is ridiculous on this sort of things and it's been only getting worse, such as the supreme court killing even the ability for workers to go after their employer with class actions, forcing arbitration.
"As Americans take up populism, the supreme court embraces business."
..Cake..
A lot of the larger crowdfunded games have been stuck on years of delays, and did so until release. From Camelot Unchained, to Crowfall, to SC, (SOTA now released but same story) and I have little doubt CoE is up to face the same reality, with perhaps even AoC, DU currently pre-alpha most likely will be pushed back beyond this year as well, Pantheon is "when it's done" so no prospects of a release yet (like SC pretty much)... I would say most of them (aka Crowdfunded MMO's) are being hit by the same reality currently, not the opposite.
Lets take your view though that all crowdfunding, just like crossing the roads, is like investments. Investment advertisements, in most countries, carry prominent warnings. Wgich suggests that crowdfunding should do the same.
Since so many cs initiatives are trivial however I would prefer some sort of ranking though.
A ranking doesn't make sense as anyone can easily see if they are getting into is something trivial or a large-scale project, I think we all know what category would crowdfunded MMO's fall into.
You could feel bad for the haters pretending to care about other peoples money lol
And yes, they'll get to fly those ships when they added, like with every other ship
You're pulling another nostrasmartanus prediction out of nowhereville lol
Crowdfunding is not pre-ordering. Deal with it.
Any pledge made is ultimately to help the development of the game as a whole, the rest is just a bonus.
It says right there when you back. It's how crowdfunding works.
If you have problem waiting why give money in advance for assets in the concept stage instead of sticking to the ones playable?
Every feature and content being developed now will be available to anyone who has a game package. Which is nice because that way the comunity is not divided from the start.
No not really. Take the guy waiting eagerly for 3.0 at the end of 2016 which never arrives, he probably thinks CIG deserve additional time as there's so much cool stuff coming in 3.0 and its following patches.
Then 3.0 arrives at the end of 2017 and it's a limp dick, despite the additional year of development it contains far less than originally planned and to top it off, it runs like a turd.
Just to add insult to injury CIG now say "haha sucker no refund for you!" despite the guy being a good little boy and waiting patiently...
Here's the problem... They've said everything is final blah blah blah etc.. but if that's the case then why have some people received refunds?
If you ask me CIG opened themselves up to this shit when they gave others refunds but now arn't giving refunds anymore. If everything was suppose to be final then that's what it shoulda been PERIOD.
They shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets and doesn't get refunds. CIG opened the can of worms themselves and with how long it's taking them to get a game going like.. it's pretty ridiculous not to mention they had to completely start over pretty much because Unreal Engine didn't do what they wanted so now they use the Amazon backend stuff
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/241674-star-citizen-developer-chris-roberts-clarifies-engine-change-promises-move-amazons-lumberyard-wont-delay-game
We can call bullshit on this.. I don't know how moving engines doesn't slow down a game.. unless EVERYTHING can be ported over to the new engine without any hassles which lets be real here.. I highly doubt everything they'd made ported over to the new Amazon's Lumberyard without a hitch.. I'm going say I'm 100% sure that there was obviously some things that broke and threw errors and bugs etc.. which of course those have to be fixed and tested so on n so forth which this is what we call a delay I mean even just the engine change alone was a delay technically because the time they spend moving everything over importing all the objects etc.. that all takes time which they could of been using to develop the game more
Whether it was a small or big delay it's still a delay technically... just being honest even though it seems stupid it's still a fact.
CIG started with CryEngine 3.5 (back in 2011 there wasn't as many options as today) and worked up from there adapting the engine to it's needs as it went.
Around 2014/15 Crytek studio in germany was having problems paying their staff and a lot of them left Crytek to join CIG.
Thanks to the millions received by backers CIG was able to not only hire them but build a studio in their city (Frankfurt) and allowed the main game engine enginers (some of them wrote the original cryengine code) to dwelve into ways to not only improove the current engine features but expand its possibilites.
Not only the graphical fidelity of the engine, (which was already very good from the start) was pushed forward but the scale of it too with the procedural technology.
Which opened the possibility of having seamless landings on planets without restrictions instead of the initial planed limited locations acessible by loading screen.
CIG took that route and adapted development accordingly.
By then Crytek financial problems kept going who led them to sell their engine license to Amazon (seeing the same opportunity Chris Roberts saw back in 2011).
Amazon called it's newly aquired CryEngine, Lumberyard and worked on its network integration with their massive server network.
CIG was looking for partners to host their single universe game and Amazon had entered the gaming business wanting to make a statement so the deal was perfect for both.
Transition was smooth enough that cig has now servers constantly spining instances of 50+50 / players+ships cap in the persistent universe and star marine / arena commander.
As for the refunds... CIG handle them of goodwil, some people tried to abuse of that goodwill so they had to act accordingly.
It's bad that because some rotten apples others have to pay but that's how things work.
How's that?
Asking refunds out of entitlement and or spite (feature/ship X is not to their liking, being banned from oficial forum etc)
― George Carlin
I'm sure Roberts is trembling with fear lol....
CIG could win the case in their favour but they could start losing money because of the amount of cases they need to deal with