Originally posted by Gazwkd Oh deary me. Poor old Derek smart has made it his job to try and destroy anything related to Chris Roberts. He has tried to get hi'articles' out everywhere and has met little success. I expected better of this site than to publicise an individual who simply rants and raves whilst promoting his own buggy, badly designed, badly conceived games that no one really cares about. He has a massive case of jealousy, upon looking at his posting history he obviously needs professional help. That this site has fallen for the ravings and rantings of this individual does the sites credibility no favours.
Whatever one thinks of Derek, he raises some valid points in his article. And quite simply, there's a story developing here, in one way or another, which it's our duty to report.
Valid points? Probably. Backbiting meddling from someone who thinks their monetary contribution allows them to dictate the creative process? Certainly.
Seeing this quickly growing snake pit of fan/supporter angst makes me realize that game makers, especially MMO creators, will never be free from the shackles of outside interference. It also makes me wonder if MMO studios might actually be better off staying in the shadow of a massive publisher, or just avoiding the genre all together.
Or simply accept accountability and oversight of the "investors" donated capital.
I think there are 2 things fueling this rage some people are suffering about SC:
1. It was crowd-funded. People freely chose to give money to a company making a video game.
2. The entire process has been open and transparent.
The thing with crowdfunding is that you are giving someone money for something they tell you you will get at a future date, assuming all goes well. It doesn't make you an investor, it's not shares in the company. Everyone who contributes to crowdfunding knows the risks, or should, that things might not pan out. If you're not comfortable with that, don't contribute. The bit that has blown all of this out of proportion is that they set a world record for crowdfunding. So what? Someone was going to do it eventually, it's just a milestone, and we move on.
If this were Bethesda (aside from financing it in more traditional ways) there would be no word on development until a few months before the game launched (take for example Fallout 4, or Fallout 3, or Skyrim....). No one gets up in arms when there is a delay or snag, because no one in the public knows about it. I think it's great that CIG is being open about their process and their challenges, but it also creates this circus we currently have. Setbacks make people sad. Sad people start to cry and get angry. And start flinging accusations.
I get that everyone wants the game now. I get that people aren't happy with what has been released, and that the original target release date of Nov 2014 has long passed. But, many other games have had their release dates pushed back and it wasn't the end of the world.
The game will get released, or it wont. The natural course of things is out of our hands. But, at this point, all Derek Smart is going to ensure is that it doesn't. Don't let him stir up the worst in us. Assume the game is going to be as awesome as advertised, and that it's going to be released, and worry about the fallout of "scams" and "lies" and all that other likely mud-slinging if it actually falls apart.
I think there are 2 things fueling this rage some people are suffering about SC:
1. It was crowd-funded. People freely chose to give money to a company making a video game.
2. The entire process has been open and transparent.
The thing with crowdfunding is that you are giving someone money for something they tell you you will get at a future date, assuming all goes well. It doesn't make you an investor, it's not shares in the company. Everyone who contributes to crowdfunding knows the risks, or should, that things might not pan out. If you're not comfortable with that, don't contribute. The bit that has blown all of this out of proportion is that they set a world record for crowdfunding. So what? Someone was going to do it eventually, it's just a milestone, and we move on.
If this were Bethesda (aside from financing it in more traditional ways) there would be no word on development until a few months before the game launched (take for example Fallout 4, or Fallout 3, or Skyrim....). No one gets up in arms when there is a delay or snag, because no one in the public knows about it. I think it's great that CIG is being open about their process and their challenges, but it also creates this circus we currently have. Setbacks make people sad. Sad people start to cry and get angry. And start flinging accusations.
I get that everyone wants the game now. I get that people aren't happy with what has been released, and that the original target release date of Nov 2014 has long passed. But, many other games have had their release dates pushed back and it wasn't the end of the world.
The game will get released, or it wont. The natural course of things is out of our hands. But, at this point, all Derek Smart is going to ensure is that it doesn't. Don't let him stir up the worst in us. Assume the game is going to be as awesome as advertised, and that it's going to be released, and worry about the fallout of "scams" and "lies" and all that other likely mud-slinging if it actually falls apart.
Originally posted by Gazwkd Oh deary me. Poor old Derek smart has made it his job to try and destroy anything related to Chris Roberts. He has tried to get hi'articles' out everywhere and has met little success. I expected better of this site than to publicise an individual who simply rants and raves whilst promoting his own buggy, badly designed, badly conceived games that no one really cares about. He has a massive case of jealousy, upon looking at his posting history he obviously needs professional help. That this site has fallen for the ravings and rantings of this individual does the sites credibility no favours.
Whatever one thinks of Derek, he raises some valid points in his article. And quite simply, there's a story developing here, in one way or another, which it's our duty to report.
I loath Derek Smart and refused to read his long winded posts. But this specific post did a good job of pulling out the salient arguments. And he does make valid points.
They probably refunded his $250 so that he can't be a party to any lawsuits. But they can't prevent him from organizing such a suit.
They will never let themselves be audited and there is no obligation for them to do so.
Originally posted by Gazwkd Oh deary me. Poor old Derek smart has made it his job to try and destroy anything related to Chris Roberts. He has tried to get hi'articles' out everywhere and has met little success. I expected better of this site than to publicise an individual who simply rants and raves whilst promoting his own buggy, badly designed, badly conceived games that no one really cares about. He has a massive case of jealousy, upon looking at his posting history he obviously needs professional help. That this site has fallen for the ravings and rantings of this individual does the sites credibility no favours.
Whatever one thinks of Derek, he raises some valid points in his article. And quite simply, there's a story developing here, in one way or another, which it's our duty to report.
Valid points? Probably. Backbiting meddling from someone who thinks their monetary contribution allows them to dictate the creative process? Certainly.
Seeing this quickly growing snake pit of fan/supporter angst makes me realize that game makers, especially MMO creators, will never be free from the shackles of outside interference. It also makes me wonder if MMO studios might actually be better off staying in the shadow of a massive publisher, or just avoiding the genre all together.
Or simply accept accountability and oversight of the "investors" donated capital.
Or simply use your own money to fund your own game and stop begging other people for money to do it.
I think there are 2 things fueling this rage some people are suffering about SC:
1. It was crowd-funded. People freely chose to give money to a company making a video game.
2. The entire process has been open and transparent.
The thing with crowdfunding is that you are giving someone money for something they tell you you will get at a future date, assuming all goes well. It doesn't make you an investor, it's not shares in the company. Everyone who contributes to crowdfunding knows the risks, or should, that things might not pan out. If you're not comfortable with that, don't contribute. The bit that has blown all of this out of proportion is that they set a world record for crowdfunding. So what? Someone was going to do it eventually, it's just a milestone, and we move on.
If this were Bethesda (aside from financing it in more traditional ways) there would be no word on development until a few months before the game launched (take for example Fallout 4, or Fallout 3, or Skyrim....). No one gets up in arms when there is a delay or snag, because no one in the public knows about it. I think it's great that CIG is being open about their process and their challenges, but it also creates this circus we currently have. Setbacks make people sad. Sad people start to cry and get angry. And start flinging accusations.
I get that everyone wants the game now. I get that people aren't happy with what has been released, and that the original target release date of Nov 2014 has long passed. But, many other games have had their release dates pushed back and it wasn't the end of the world.
The game will get released, or it wont. The natural course of things is out of our hands. But, at this point, all Derek Smart is going to ensure is that it doesn't. Don't let him stir up the worst in us. Assume the game is going to be as awesome as advertised, and that it's going to be released, and worry about the fallout of "scams" and "lies" and all that other likely mud-slinging if it actually falls apart.
That's why you, as a donor, have to understand the risks. If you're not comfortable with them, don't contribute to the campaign. "Greed Monger" seems to be a case of fraudulent, or at least shady, activity. I don't think that really applies to CIG.
I didn't even bother reading the article. It's hard to criticize a game where the group working on it are going out of their way to address these concerns on the forums, via their own published media, and at conventions. It's not like a AAA publisher where we are living behind a brick wall and our voices can never seem to reach anyone important.
I backed the game to watch a labor of love slowly be built into something that others may enjoy, and I feel the money has been well placed. If the game fails when it releases or not is left for time to decide.
As backers of this project, here is our list of demands:
disclose the full detailed (private jet travel? we want to see it) P&L accounting (money in off-shore bank accounts? we want to know about them) for every crowd-funded dime that has been raised and spent on this project. Allow an independent forensics accountant, hired by backers, to come and do an audit. This is standard practice in developer-publisher relationships. So you know how that works.
disclose the true state of the project in terms of what is expected to be delivered, and when. Allow an independent Executive Producer, hired by backers, to come and do a project review in order to get an accurate picture of the game state, so we know when it is likely to see the light of day – if ever
disclose the true timeline for the project’s completion. As per the above.
setup a page offering refunds to all those who REQUEST it. The TOS is going to be the first thing attacked in any lawsuit. It is not likely to survive a legal challenge. Plus, the FTC will trump all that crap anyway, so there is that.
admit, in no uncertain terms, and apologize that the scope of the project has changed since the original $2.1m kickstarter crowd-funding campaign
halt all further crowd-funding activities until a sizable part of the game – as originally pitched in 2012 – has been delivered to backers who have paid for it. In other words, STOP selling virtual items and taking money for vaporware
address the nepotism issues associated with the hiring of unqualified family members to head key parts of this crowd-funded project. In this regard, explain the benefits of a) promoting your brother to an Executive Producer position, as opposed to hiring someone (like the departed Alex Mayberry) who has the experience to match the job. Also what new benefits (pay raise, shares etc) he now has access to, for going into that position b) hiring someone, allegedly your wife, to a position that she is seemingly not qualified to hold. And why a more experienced executive wasn’t put in this position. Especially since that dept has several men, and women, with more experience and qualifications to do the job. Instead, they get to answer to her; and naturally, she gets paid more, as per the position
file the necessary SEC paperwork (Regulation A+, as per the Title IV of the JOBS Act) that fit within the guidelines for crowd-funding activities. These automatically become public, and are subject to FOI requests. It effectively makes the backers bona-fide investors, and thus gives them more oversight over this project, and where their money is going. UPDATE: Even though this regulation doesn’t quite fit within the current biz model you are using, you have setup various corporate entities around the world, for various aspects of the business, so this is not something that’s insurmountable for your officers to do
This is a reasonable short list of demands that any company acting in good faith would have no problem fulfilling. All CIG needs to do is become a bit more transparent and all of this bad press would go away. Not only would transparency make the bad press go away, but it would serve as a conduit of good will that would in turn allow CIG to raise even more money going forward. The fact that they are not even trying to squelch any of this bad press by submitting to at least some of these demands is a telling sign of an admission of guilt.
By voluntarily, and without cause, deciding to refund DSmart his backer's money, CIG is attempting to take away some of the thunder in Smart's claims. In doing so, what they are clearly attempting to do is take away any strength that Smart may have by claiming that he himself is a backer therefore giving him a vested right and interest for making these demands. They are attempting to disassociate him as an investor from the project and in doing so, in essence saying, "you are not even a backer so just go away and leave us alone." Little do they know that this will actually backfire on them because what it does is confirm the fact that CIG has received his requested "List of Demands" but has decided to not only refuse to act on them, but to act in bad faith by attempting to disassociate or create separation from him by involuntarily sending him back his contribution. This, in and of itself, is very telling because if you have nothing to hide, why not, in good faith, simply keep his contribution and provide the information requested?
Deservedly or not, CIG is being made to look very bad in this fiasco. It would do them well to start becoming a bit more transparent and begin responding to some of these demands. There should be no problem doing so if you are an honest company, acting in good faith. Their behavior has become very very shady and unless they start coming clean this is all going to start unraveling very quickly and no amount of paid dispatched shills to popular outside websites/blogs, or hired crisis management PR talking heads, are going to be able to circumvent the predictable catastrophic end result looming ahead.
Dear god, such drama. You don't get to make demands, and there is NOTHING that indicates that project is any where near at risk yet. Arm chair developers irk me.
You mean like completely missing their promised release date and having nothing to show at this point?
Originally posted by tammerlane. Sad people start to cry and get angry. And start flinging accusations.
Condescend much?
People should be angry. And they should be concerned that despite the release date having come and gone, that there's yet to be any semblance of an alpha release. All the while Roberts and Co. are still trying to build and sell items for this nonexistent game.
It IS possible to have faith in the development team, AND also recognize why people are upset, you know; maybe realize that they shouldn't be addressed like toddlers who lost their favorite toy?
Has anyone thought that maybe that this is a ploy set by Derek Smart to purposely hinder SC because its one of the first AAA style games using a kick starter with out a publisher like money hungering EA. If Chris Roberts could pull this off what kind of impact would it have on the gaming industery as a whole. (for the better IMO) why would any publisher want this? seriously lets think about this. Why would he push such a subject and put his nose in another companies buisness other then the fact of Derek Smart liking to hear his own voice.
Derek Smart is to gaming as Donald Trump is to foreign policy. He has no credibility in this industry, why would you legitimize his ravings with an article?
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
Originally posted by Gazwkd Oh deary me. Poor old Derek smart has made it his job to try and destroy anything related to Chris Roberts. He has tried to get hi'articles' out everywhere and has met little success. I expected better of this site than to publicise an individual who simply rants and raves whilst promoting his own buggy, badly designed, badly conceived games that no one really cares about. He has a massive case of jealousy, upon looking at his posting history he obviously needs professional help. That this site has fallen for the ravings and rantings of this individual does the sites credibility no favours.
Whatever one thinks of Derek, he raises some valid points in his article. And quite simply, there's a story developing here, in one way or another, which it's our duty to report.
Valid points? Probably. Backbiting meddling from someone who thinks their monetary contribution allows them to dictate the creative process? Certainly.
Seeing this quickly growing snake pit of fan/supporter angst makes me realize that game makers, especially MMO creators, will never be free from the shackles of outside interference. It also makes me wonder if MMO studios might actually be better off staying in the shadow of a massive publisher, or just avoiding the genre all together.
Or simply accept accountability and oversight of the "investors" donated capital.
Or simply use your own money to fund your own game and stop begging other people for money to do it.
Or alternatively don't throw money into a known high risk situation and then cry when it doesn't pan out. Should a casino pay me back my money when I blow it all in a slot machine trying to hit the jackpot, but failing to do so? And I know that's not quite a fair analogy, but both endeavors are truly based on hope rather than any real hands on control.
As Tammerlane so succinctly explained, supporting a kickstarter project does not make you an investor, just a supporter. Your right to controlling the situation ended the moment you signed that money over to the project. You have absolutely no rights to make any demands of this company.
Now is that a savvy way to do business? Not in my book, which is why I don't support kickstarter projects. However to those of you who supported this one and now are having second thoughts about it, all I have to say is "Caveat Emptor" and "A fool and his money are soon parted."
You call it "supporting," but it is much more than just "support." It is a contribution with a good faith expectation of receiving a finished product in return, as dictated by the selling pitch put forth to elicit that contribution. It is a lot more like the investment of a stock based on its prospectus, than the contribution of funds because you believe in a cause or an underlying philosophy. Whereas in the latter there is no expectation of a physical and tangible end product to be received in return for your contribution, in the former there most certainly is.
I highly doubt anyone would contribute upwards of thousands of dollars to the developers of a game simply because they believed in their vision with no expectation of receiving anything back in return. Its an indefensible position to take in this matter. Contributors to this venture should absolutely have a right to make demands in regards to how their contributions have been allocated. And why should any company aspire to refuse such transparency in light of the tens of millions of dollars that were in good faith contributed?
I didn't even bother reading the article. It's hard to criticize a game where the group working on it are going out of their way to address these concerns on the forums, via their own published media, and at conventions. It's not like a AAA publisher where we are living behind a brick wall and our voices can never seem to reach anyone important.
I backed the game to watch a labor of love slowly be built into something that others may enjoy, and I feel the money has been well placed. If the game fails when it releases or not is left for time to decide.
They only address the concerns when a well known publication or person starts making waves. And even then the way they address it is with spin and condescending attitude to them.
This game will be thoroughly ruined by the continued silencing of criticism of its fanbase. The fanbase has assured CIG will not receive another dime from me.
I didn't even bother reading the article. It's hard to criticize a game where the group working on it are going out of their way to address these concerns on the forums, via their own published media, and at conventions. It's not like a AAA publisher where we are living behind a brick wall and our voices can never seem to reach anyone important.
I backed the game to watch a labor of love slowly be built into something that others may enjoy, and I feel the money has been well placed. If the game fails when it releases or not is left for time to decide.
They only address the concerns when a well known publication or person starts making waves. And even then the way they address it is with spin and condescending attitude to them.
This game will be thoroughly ruined by the continued silencing of criticism of its fanbase. The fanbase has assured CIG will not receive another dime from me.
I'd say the fanbase are more critical of the game than any other group, given what I've seen on the forums.
I didn't even bother reading the article. It's hard to criticize a game where the group working on it are going out of their way to address these concerns on the forums, via their own published media, and at conventions. It's not like a AAA publisher where we are living behind a brick wall and our voices can never seem to reach anyone important.
I backed the game to watch a labor of love slowly be built into something that others may enjoy, and I feel the money has been well placed. If the game fails when it releases or not is left for time to decide.
They only address the concerns when a well known publication or person starts making waves. And even then the way they address it is with spin and condescending attitude to them.
This game will be thoroughly ruined by the continued silencing of criticism of its fanbase. The fanbase has assured CIG will not receive another dime from me.
I'd say the fanbase are more critical of the game than any other group, given what I've seen on the forums.
"I mean, all you need to know about the legitimacy of the project is to gaze into the fanaticism of Chris Roberts's eyes."
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Don't really care for Derek Smart, but he makes some very valid arguments and brings up concerns for many backers of RSI/Star Citizen.
I for one just wanted to see Squadron 42 and Star Citizen released. With that said, I have voiced my concerns about the development of SC a few times and I said on numerous occasions that the game was getting bloated with feature creep and heading off course of the main goals - the develop and release of SC and SQ42. Here we are today and we're still wondering if SQ42 and SC will actually be released. RSI seemed more concerned with releasing sub-crappy games like Arena Commander and then the Star Marine(which doesn't look like it is ever going to happen now). Do contributors like myself have a reason to be concerned? Yeah we do...I'd like to think that Chris would not screw us over and produce the games he promised. So I am still in a holding pattern and willing to wait to see if SC and SQ42 are actually released. If they aren't - I'll have learned a lesson and never donate to another crowd funded game again.
Originally posted by Gazwkd Oh deary me. Poor old Derek smart has made it his job to try and destroy anything related to Chris Roberts. He has tried to get hi'articles' out everywhere and has met little success. I expected better of this site than to publicise an individual who simply rants and raves whilst promoting his own buggy, badly designed, badly conceived games that no one really cares about. He has a massive case of jealousy, upon looking at his posting history he obviously needs professional help. That this site has fallen for the ravings and rantings of this individual does the sites credibility no favours.
Whatever one thinks of Derek, he raises some valid points in his article. And quite simply, there's a story developing here, in one way or another, which it's our duty to report.
No he doesn't. Star Citizen can crash and burn for all I care but promoting the bile and filth that comes out from a person like Derek Smart doesn't make much sense to me.
Derek Smart brings valid criticisms of CIG. Would anyone really care if he wasn't so vehement about it? Probably not. Sometimes it takes someone to be forceful with harsher criticisms to finally bring light to a situation, which he is doing.
Star Citizen will never be released if they seriously think they can release all their promises.
No matter what you say or think about Derek, he has some very legitimate points.
yeah, no. He pretty much copy/pasted Manzes (the troll who attacks anything Star Citizen, all the time), added a healthy dose of self aggrandizing, and threw in some advertising for his shitty games.
Yep. I don't even know why I read this, its only restating the things people have been saying for the last 6 months.
Nice try, but that is NOT what this poll was about. "Would you like there to be a publically available refund process now, given this latest development?" was the question asked. That does NOT mean that 30 % want their money back.
I think there are 2 things fueling this rage some people are suffering about SC:
1. It was crowd-funded. People freely chose to give money to a company making a video game.
2. The entire process has been open and transparent.
The thing with crowdfunding is that you are giving someone money for something they tell you you will get at a future date, assuming all goes well. It doesn't make you an investor, it's not shares in the company. Everyone who contributes to crowdfunding knows the risks, or should, that things might not pan out. If you're not comfortable with that, don't contribute. The bit that has blown all of this out of proportion is that they set a world record for crowdfunding. So what? Someone was going to do it eventually, it's just a milestone, and we move on.
If this were Bethesda (aside from financing it in more traditional ways) there would be no word on development until a few months before the game launched (take for example Fallout 4, or Fallout 3, or Skyrim....). No one gets up in arms when there is a delay or snag, because no one in the public knows about it. I think it's great that CIG is being open about their process and their challenges, but it also creates this circus we currently have. Setbacks make people sad. Sad people start to cry and get angry. And start flinging accusations.
I get that everyone wants the game now. I get that people aren't happy with what has been released, and that the original target release date of Nov 2014 has long passed. But, many other games have had their release dates pushed back and it wasn't the end of the world.
The game will get released, or it wont. The natural course of things is out of our hands. But, at this point, all Derek Smart is going to ensure is that it doesn't. Don't let him stir up the worst in us. Assume the game is going to be as awesome as advertised, and that it's going to be released, and worry about the fallout of "scams" and "lies" and all that other likely mud-slinging if it actually falls apart.
That's why you, as a donor, have to understand the risks. If you're not comfortable with them, don't contribute to the campaign. "Greed Monger" seems to be a case of fraudulent, or at least shady, activity. I don't think that really applies to CIG.
I didn't and never will, the point is it's never gonna be shady and could not possibly be shady until it's shady.
Comments
Or simply accept accountability and oversight of the "investors" donated capital.
I think there are 2 things fueling this rage some people are suffering about SC:
1. It was crowd-funded. People freely chose to give money to a company making a video game.
2. The entire process has been open and transparent.
The thing with crowdfunding is that you are giving someone money for something they tell you you will get at a future date, assuming all goes well. It doesn't make you an investor, it's not shares in the company. Everyone who contributes to crowdfunding knows the risks, or should, that things might not pan out. If you're not comfortable with that, don't contribute. The bit that has blown all of this out of proportion is that they set a world record for crowdfunding. So what? Someone was going to do it eventually, it's just a milestone, and we move on.
If this were Bethesda (aside from financing it in more traditional ways) there would be no word on development until a few months before the game launched (take for example Fallout 4, or Fallout 3, or Skyrim....). No one gets up in arms when there is a delay or snag, because no one in the public knows about it. I think it's great that CIG is being open about their process and their challenges, but it also creates this circus we currently have. Setbacks make people sad. Sad people start to cry and get angry. And start flinging accusations.
I get that everyone wants the game now. I get that people aren't happy with what has been released, and that the original target release date of Nov 2014 has long passed. But, many other games have had their release dates pushed back and it wasn't the end of the world.
The game will get released, or it wont. The natural course of things is out of our hands. But, at this point, all Derek Smart is going to ensure is that it doesn't. Don't let him stir up the worst in us. Assume the game is going to be as awesome as advertised, and that it's going to be released, and worry about the fallout of "scams" and "lies" and all that other likely mud-slinging if it actually falls apart.
How soon we forgot:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/432529/page/1
I loath Derek Smart and refused to read his long winded posts. But this specific post did a good job of pulling out the salient arguments. And he does make valid points.
They probably refunded his $250 so that he can't be a party to any lawsuits. But they can't prevent him from organizing such a suit.
They will never let themselves be audited and there is no obligation for them to do so.
Or simply use your own money to fund your own game and stop begging other people for money to do it.
That's why you, as a donor, have to understand the risks. If you're not comfortable with them, don't contribute to the campaign. "Greed Monger" seems to be a case of fraudulent, or at least shady, activity. I don't think that really applies to CIG.
I didn't even bother reading the article. It's hard to criticize a game where the group working on it are going out of their way to address these concerns on the forums, via their own published media, and at conventions. It's not like a AAA publisher where we are living behind a brick wall and our voices can never seem to reach anyone important.
I backed the game to watch a labor of love slowly be built into something that others may enjoy, and I feel the money has been well placed. If the game fails when it releases or not is left for time to decide.
You mean like completely missing their promised release date and having nothing to show at this point?
Condescend much?
People should be angry. And they should be concerned that despite the release date having come and gone, that there's yet to be any semblance of an alpha release. All the while Roberts and Co. are still trying to build and sell items for this nonexistent game.
It IS possible to have faith in the development team, AND also recognize why people are upset, you know; maybe realize that they shouldn't be addressed like toddlers who lost their favorite toy?
Looks like they've started processing refunds for those who ask
https://twitter.com/SkyHuntersLLC/status/621007545050791936
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living.
If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
Ouch.. It only took some noise for them to finally do it. Strange that they would rather do refunds than to talk and show what they have done.
You call it "supporting," but it is much more than just "support." It is a contribution with a good faith expectation of receiving a finished product in return, as dictated by the selling pitch put forth to elicit that contribution. It is a lot more like the investment of a stock based on its prospectus, than the contribution of funds because you believe in a cause or an underlying philosophy. Whereas in the latter there is no expectation of a physical and tangible end product to be received in return for your contribution, in the former there most certainly is.
I highly doubt anyone would contribute upwards of thousands of dollars to the developers of a game simply because they believed in their vision with no expectation of receiving anything back in return. Its an indefensible position to take in this matter. Contributors to this venture should absolutely have a right to make demands in regards to how their contributions have been allocated. And why should any company aspire to refuse such transparency in light of the tens of millions of dollars that were in good faith contributed?
They only address the concerns when a well known publication or person starts making waves. And even then the way they address it is with spin and condescending attitude to them.
This game will be thoroughly ruined by the continued silencing of criticism of its fanbase. The fanbase has assured CIG will not receive another dime from me.
I'd say the fanbase are more critical of the game than any other group, given what I've seen on the forums.
I'm kind of confused by your link... did you get refunded out of the blue without you requesting it? or did you request a refund?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"I mean, all you need to know about the legitimacy of the project is to gaze into the fanaticism of Chris Roberts's eyes."
http://fyre.it/bzNhI7.4
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Don't really care for Derek Smart, but he makes some very valid arguments and brings up concerns for many backers of RSI/Star Citizen.
I for one just wanted to see Squadron 42 and Star Citizen released. With that said, I have voiced my concerns about the development of SC a few times and I said on numerous occasions that the game was getting bloated with feature creep and heading off course of the main goals - the develop and release of SC and SQ42. Here we are today and we're still wondering if SQ42 and SC will actually be released. RSI seemed more concerned with releasing sub-crappy games like Arena Commander and then the Star Marine(which doesn't look like it is ever going to happen now). Do contributors like myself have a reason to be concerned? Yeah we do...I'd like to think that Chris would not screw us over and produce the games he promised. So I am still in a holding pattern and willing to wait to see if SC and SQ42 are actually released. If they aren't - I'll have learned a lesson and never donate to another crowd funded game again.
No he doesn't. Star Citizen can crash and burn for all I care but promoting the bile and filth that comes out from a person like Derek Smart doesn't make much sense to me.
Derek Smart brings valid criticisms of CIG. Would anyone really care if he wasn't so vehement about it? Probably not. Sometimes it takes someone to be forceful with harsher criticisms to finally bring light to a situation, which he is doing.
Star Citizen will never be released if they seriously think they can release all their promises.
Yep. I don't even know why I read this, its only restating the things people have been saying for the last 6 months.
Nice try, but that is NOT what this poll was about. "Would you like there to be a publically available refund process now, given this latest development?" was the question asked. That does NOT mean that 30 % want their money back.
Have fun
I didn't and never will, the point is it's never gonna be shady and could not possibly be shady until it's shady.
Hence - How soon we forget.