Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I never invested in CoE, so I have nothing at stake, but nothing pisses me off more than people who defend dubious corporate business practices. While I agree Xsolla is the one getting screwed now instead of SBS, who it should be, this will only make future crowdfunded projects more difficult to launch, which is a shame. No one who backed CoE should be blamed. The fact some people on here are attacking the lawsuit as illegitimate is disgusting, considering it's been stated that "WE" need to man up? Yet Xsolla gets a free pass? Seriously, I hate anti-consumer / pro-unethical corporate bullshit people.
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
Consumers are not always right nor should they be able to demand compensation for their own follies from parties not responsible outside of handling the payment transaction.
Some of us work for corporations and well understand the tendency for liability lawyers and their "victims" to go after those with deep pockets, just because they can.
I believe any bias may actually be coming from the person that works (or has worked) for a financial services company. There is absolutely nothing wrong , 0%, with expecting a company to do what they said they would do.
What would be wrong was demanding that Xsolla refund them if there was no such refund clause. But there is... and I still for the life of me cannot understand why you think it is ethical for a company to ignore what they said they would do.
I get the idea that "Hey the contract says X but these customers are dumb-asses so I hope they feel pain" but that is a far cry from saying it's unethical to expect a company to actually stand by what they guaranteed.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
I’m afraid my anti stupid consumer bias won’t let me see your side of the argument.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
Presumably, if Xsolla collected money for SBS, they probably gave that money to SBS. Collecting from Xsolla will not necessarily extract money, only their general funds. For all we know, they may have difficulty collecting money themselves.
But saying one thing and doing another isn't always a matter for the courts to decide; it's almost a corporate mantra. If the case proceeds only against Xsolla, there is a good likelihood that it will be thrown out. That's why I see this case as failing unless they really go after SBS and their LLC.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.
Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of
effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project
to life. At the same time, backers must understand that when they back a
project, they’re helping to create something new — not ordering
something that already exists. There may be changes or delays, and
there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from
being able to finish the project as promised.
If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards,
they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To
right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way
of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A
creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their
obligations to backers if:
they post an update that explains what work has been
done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the
project as planned;
they work diligently and in good faith to bring the
project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s
communicated to backers;
they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds
appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project
as promised;
they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
they offer to return any remaining funds to backers
who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts
pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the
project in some alternate form.
The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in
their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement,
they may be subject to legal action by backers.
According the the last sentence of the KS ToS, which SBS agreed to by using the KS platform, SBS can be subject to legal action by backers for breach of the terms.
However, whether a lawyer sees it worth their time to hold SBS individually liable is a different question.
Also, unlike Xsolla, KickStarter did not make any personal guarantees about refunds or that fully-funded projects would be completed. So I don't see KS being grouped into a lawsuit with SBS.
Sorry, it looks like I was mistaken. But you also misquoted by not mentioning the third option at all.
The old terms were actually that creator had to either fulfill rewards or refund and there isn't a third option. Now that you made that longer quote, those new terms have third option where the creator can fail without giving neither the rewards nor refunds.
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
Presumably, if Xsolla collected money for SBS, they probably gave that money to SBS. Collecting from Xsolla will not necessarily extract money, only their general funds. For all we know, they may have difficulty collecting money themselves.
But saying one thing and doing another isn't always a matter for the courts to decide; it's almost a corporate mantra. If the case proceeds only against Xsolla, there is a good likelihood that it will be thrown out. That's why I see this case as failing unless they really go after SBS and their LLC.
WTF, how hard is this to understand. Xsolla takes money and offers refunds if product / services aren't delivered. Doesn't matter if they are simply a 3rd party middleman for funds between consumers and SBS. They HAVE a refund policy in place, so since SBS hasn't provided anyone with a product or service as of yet, refunds should be granted up until that happens. The only reason there's a lawsuit is that Xsolla stopped refunds.
It is entirely possible that Xsolla cannot give refunds because they forwarded most of the money collected to SBS, and SBS *may* be stiffing them too. They may only retain their fee, which won't be the entire amount paid in. Too many people are assuming that Xsolla kept the money they handled. Yes, Xsolla may have other monies in the bank, but that may be legally protected since they collected X amount for SBS, kept F amount, and paid a discounted amount Y to SBS. Y + F = X.
What happens if the lawsuit wins but only recaptures F amount? Would the plaintiffs (and lawyers) be happy? In either case, the real culprit, SBS wins.
That's why I don't think including Xsolla in the case is a winning strategy.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
Presumably, if Xsolla collected money for SBS, they probably gave that money to SBS. Collecting from Xsolla will not necessarily extract money, only their general funds. For all we know, they may have difficulty collecting money themselves.
But saying one thing and doing another isn't always a matter for the courts to decide; it's almost a corporate mantra. If the case proceeds only against Xsolla, there is a good likelihood that it will be thrown out. That's why I see this case as failing unless they really go after SBS and their LLC.
WTF, how hard is this to understand. Xsolla takes money and offers refunds if product / services aren't delivered. Doesn't matter if they are simply a 3rd party middleman for funds between consumers and SBS. They HAVE a refund policy in place, so since SBS hasn't provided anyone with a product or service as of yet, refunds should be granted up until that happens. The only reason there's a lawsuit is that Xsolla stopped refunds.
It is entirely possible that Xsolla cannot give refunds because they forwarded most of the money collected to SBS, and SBS *may* be stiffing them too. They may only retain their fee, which won't be the entire amount paid in. Too many people are assuming that Xsolla kept the money they handled. Yes, Xsolla may have other monies in the bank, but that may be legally protected since they collected X amount for SBS, kept F amount, and paid a discounted amount Y to SBS. Y + F = X.
What happens if the lawsuit wins but only recaptures F amount? Would the plaintiffs (and lawyers) be happy? In either case, the real culprit, SBS wins.
That's why I don't think including Xsolla in the case is a winning strategy.
Whether SBS is stiffing Xsolla or not is not really relevant. When transaction provider promises refunds they must give those refunds out of their own money if necessary.
Then Xsolla can likely attempt to acquire the money they used for refunds from SBS later on, but that's a matter for between Xsolla and SBS. People aren't assuming that Xsolla could do it.
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
Presumably, if Xsolla collected money for SBS, they probably gave that money to SBS. Collecting from Xsolla will not necessarily extract money, only their general funds. For all we know, they may have difficulty collecting money themselves.
But saying one thing and doing another isn't always a matter for the courts to decide; it's almost a corporate mantra. If the case proceeds only against Xsolla, there is a good likelihood that it will be thrown out. That's why I see this case as failing unless they really go after SBS and their LLC.
WTF, how hard is this to understand. Xsolla takes money and offers refunds if product / services aren't delivered. Doesn't matter if they are simply a 3rd party middleman for funds between consumers and SBS. They HAVE a refund policy in place, so since SBS hasn't provided anyone with a product or service as of yet, refunds should be granted up until that happens. The only reason there's a lawsuit is that Xsolla stopped refunds.
It is entirely possible that Xsolla cannot give refunds because they forwarded most of the money collected to SBS, and SBS *may* be stiffing them too. They may only retain their fee, which won't be the entire amount paid in. Too many people are assuming that Xsolla kept the money they handled. Yes, Xsolla may have other monies in the bank, but that may be legally protected since they collected X amount for SBS, kept F amount, and paid a discounted amount Y to SBS. Y + F = X.
What happens if the lawsuit wins but only recaptures F amount? Would the plaintiffs (and lawyers) be happy? In either case, the real culprit, SBS wins.
That's why I don't think including Xsolla in the case is a winning strategy.
I’m really confused by this post. Are you contending that a lawsuit would only focus on profit for Xsolla from a specific product? That is not how this works. If the plaintiffs win, Xsolla would have to pay whatever was awarded, even if it was far more than their fees. Otherwise nobody would ever honor a contract. “Oh you bought a car from us? Well you paid $30k but our dealer profit fee was only $750 so that’s what we will pay you back”.
Maybe I just misunderstood?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Personally I don't see any problem with anything the developers did. Anyone funding a MMO should be quite aware it is a very risky undertaking. Buyer beware in this case.
funding a MMO through Kickstarter is ludicrous to start with. It had to be obvious from the start that the chances of getting anything for their money was slim to start with.
I just do not see that they have any case to stand on. Stupid is as stupid does.
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
Presumably, if Xsolla collected money for SBS, they probably gave that money to SBS. Collecting from Xsolla will not necessarily extract money, only their general funds. For all we know, they may have difficulty collecting money themselves.
But saying one thing and doing another isn't always a matter for the courts to decide; it's almost a corporate mantra. If the case proceeds only against Xsolla, there is a good likelihood that it will be thrown out. That's why I see this case as failing unless they really go after SBS and their LLC.
WTF, how hard is this to understand. Xsolla takes money and offers refunds if product / services aren't delivered. Doesn't matter if they are simply a 3rd party middleman for funds between consumers and SBS. They HAVE a refund policy in place, so since SBS hasn't provided anyone with a product or service as of yet, refunds should be granted up until that happens. The only reason there's a lawsuit is that Xsolla stopped refunds.
It is entirely possible that Xsolla cannot give refunds because they forwarded most of the money collected to SBS, and SBS *may* be stiffing them too. They may only retain their fee, which won't be the entire amount paid in. Too many people are assuming that Xsolla kept the money they handled. Yes, Xsolla may have other monies in the bank, but that may be legally protected since they collected X amount for SBS, kept F amount, and paid a discounted amount Y to SBS. Y + F = X.
What happens if the lawsuit wins but only recaptures F amount? Would the plaintiffs (and lawyers) be happy? In either case, the real culprit, SBS wins.
That's why I don't think including Xsolla in the case is a winning strategy.
I’m really confused by this post. Are you contending that a lawsuit would only focus on profit for Xsolla from a specific product? That is not how this works. If the plaintiffs win, Xsolla would have to pay whatever was awarded, even if it was far more than their fees. Otherwise nobody would ever honor a contract. “Oh you bought a car from us? Well you paid $30k but our dealer profit fee was only $750 so that’s what we will pay you back”.
Maybe I just misunderstood?
The key is 'winning'. If Xsolla loses and they have to return all the money they collected (fees + SBS part), this only hurts Xsolla and not SBS. SBS appear to be the main culprits of this case, yet they would go unpunished. If the plaintiff's lawyers choose to not tackle the LLC, SBS will even go unchallenged. A third party billing company is being asked to be financially responsible for the fraudulent and deceptive actions of another company. The plaintiffs might see their money again, but there will be no deterrent against the real culprit. That's not 'winning' in my book.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
Presumably, if Xsolla collected money for SBS, they probably gave that money to SBS. Collecting from Xsolla will not necessarily extract money, only their general funds. For all we know, they may have difficulty collecting money themselves.
But saying one thing and doing another isn't always a matter for the courts to decide; it's almost a corporate mantra. If the case proceeds only against Xsolla, there is a good likelihood that it will be thrown out. That's why I see this case as failing unless they really go after SBS and their LLC.
WTF, how hard is this to understand. Xsolla takes money and offers refunds if product / services aren't delivered. Doesn't matter if they are simply a 3rd party middleman for funds between consumers and SBS. They HAVE a refund policy in place, so since SBS hasn't provided anyone with a product or service as of yet, refunds should be granted up until that happens. The only reason there's a lawsuit is that Xsolla stopped refunds.
It is entirely possible that Xsolla cannot give refunds because they forwarded most of the money collected to SBS, and SBS *may* be stiffing them too. They may only retain their fee, which won't be the entire amount paid in. Too many people are assuming that Xsolla kept the money they handled. Yes, Xsolla may have other monies in the bank, but that may be legally protected since they collected X amount for SBS, kept F amount, and paid a discounted amount Y to SBS. Y + F = X.
What happens if the lawsuit wins but only recaptures F amount? Would the plaintiffs (and lawyers) be happy? In either case, the real culprit, SBS wins.
That's why I don't think including Xsolla in the case is a winning strategy.
I’m really confused by this post. Are you contending that a lawsuit would only focus on profit for Xsolla from a specific product? That is not how this works. If the plaintiffs win, Xsolla would have to pay whatever was awarded, even if it was far more than their fees. Otherwise nobody would ever honor a contract. “Oh you bought a car from us? Well you paid $30k but our dealer profit fee was only $750 so that’s what we will pay you back”.
Maybe I just misunderstood?
The key is 'winning'. If Xsolla loses and they have to return all the money they collected (fees + SBS part), this only hurts Xsolla and not SBS. SBS appear to be the main culprits of this case, yet they would go unpunished. If the plaintiff's lawyers choose to not tackle the LLC, SBS will even go unchallenged. A third party billing company is being asked to be financially responsible for the fraudulent and deceptive actions of another company. The plaintiffs might see their money again, but there will be no deterrent against the real culprit. That's not 'winning' in my book.
It sounds like Xsolla should hold the real culprit accountable then, because no one else can.
Victims hold Xsolla responsible, which then leads Xsolla to hold SBS responsible. Win, Win, Lose (for Caspian).
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
Presumably, if Xsolla collected money for SBS, they probably gave that money to SBS. Collecting from Xsolla will not necessarily extract money, only their general funds. For all we know, they may have difficulty collecting money themselves.
But saying one thing and doing another isn't always a matter for the courts to decide; it's almost a corporate mantra. If the case proceeds only against Xsolla, there is a good likelihood that it will be thrown out. That's why I see this case as failing unless they really go after SBS and their LLC.
WTF, how hard is this to understand. Xsolla takes money and offers refunds if product / services aren't delivered. Doesn't matter if they are simply a 3rd party middleman for funds between consumers and SBS. They HAVE a refund policy in place, so since SBS hasn't provided anyone with a product or service as of yet, refunds should be granted up until that happens. The only reason there's a lawsuit is that Xsolla stopped refunds.
It is entirely possible that Xsolla cannot give refunds because they forwarded most of the money collected to SBS, and SBS *may* be stiffing them too. They may only retain their fee, which won't be the entire amount paid in. Too many people are assuming that Xsolla kept the money they handled. Yes, Xsolla may have other monies in the bank, but that may be legally protected since they collected X amount for SBS, kept F amount, and paid a discounted amount Y to SBS. Y + F = X.
What happens if the lawsuit wins but only recaptures F amount? Would the plaintiffs (and lawyers) be happy? In either case, the real culprit, SBS wins.
That's why I don't think including Xsolla in the case is a winning strategy.
I’m really confused by this post. Are you contending that a lawsuit would only focus on profit for Xsolla from a specific product? That is not how this works. If the plaintiffs win, Xsolla would have to pay whatever was awarded, even if it was far more than their fees. Otherwise nobody would ever honor a contract. “Oh you bought a car from us? Well you paid $30k but our dealer profit fee was only $750 so that’s what we will pay you back”.
Maybe I just misunderstood?
The key is 'winning'. If Xsolla loses and they have to return all the money they collected (fees + SBS part), this only hurts Xsolla and not SBS. SBS appear to be the main culprits of this case, yet they would go unpunished. If the plaintiff's lawyers choose to not tackle the LLC, SBS will even go unchallenged. A third party billing company is being asked to be financially responsible for the fraudulent and deceptive actions of another company. The plaintiffs might see their money again, but there will be no deterrent against the real culprit. That's not 'winning' in my book.
It sounds like Xsolla should hold the real culprit accountable then, because no one else can.
Victims hold Xsolla responsible, which then leads Xsolla to hold SBS responsible. Win, Win, Lose (for Caspian).
That solution only wins for the people who paid through Xsolla. I'm not entirely sure, but they came onto the scene relatively late, as I recall. SBS had their own store and processed money directly from customers, who are still left unsatisfied.
Xsolla *should* be eligible to join a class action suit against SBS, but losing a class action suit *might* make a potential ally hesitant to join in. The scenario you pose here infers that Xsolla would need to make a suit against SBS independently of the ongoing class action suit.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
Presumably, if Xsolla collected money for SBS, they probably gave that money to SBS. Collecting from Xsolla will not necessarily extract money, only their general funds. For all we know, they may have difficulty collecting money themselves.
But saying one thing and doing another isn't always a matter for the courts to decide; it's almost a corporate mantra. If the case proceeds only against Xsolla, there is a good likelihood that it will be thrown out. That's why I see this case as failing unless they really go after SBS and their LLC.
WTF, how hard is this to understand. Xsolla takes money and offers refunds if product / services aren't delivered. Doesn't matter if they are simply a 3rd party middleman for funds between consumers and SBS. They HAVE a refund policy in place, so since SBS hasn't provided anyone with a product or service as of yet, refunds should be granted up until that happens. The only reason there's a lawsuit is that Xsolla stopped refunds.
It is entirely possible that Xsolla cannot give refunds because they forwarded most of the money collected to SBS, and SBS *may* be stiffing them too. They may only retain their fee, which won't be the entire amount paid in. Too many people are assuming that Xsolla kept the money they handled. Yes, Xsolla may have other monies in the bank, but that may be legally protected since they collected X amount for SBS, kept F amount, and paid a discounted amount Y to SBS. Y + F = X.
What happens if the lawsuit wins but only recaptures F amount? Would the plaintiffs (and lawyers) be happy? In either case, the real culprit, SBS wins.
That's why I don't think including Xsolla in the case is a winning strategy.
I’m really confused by this post. Are you contending that a lawsuit would only focus on profit for Xsolla from a specific product? That is not how this works. If the plaintiffs win, Xsolla would have to pay whatever was awarded, even if it was far more than their fees. Otherwise nobody would ever honor a contract. “Oh you bought a car from us? Well you paid $30k but our dealer profit fee was only $750 so that’s what we will pay you back”.
Maybe I just misunderstood?
The key is 'winning'. If Xsolla loses and they have to return all the money they collected (fees + SBS part), this only hurts Xsolla and not SBS. SBS appear to be the main culprits of this case, yet they would go unpunished. If the plaintiff's lawyers choose to not tackle the LLC, SBS will even go unchallenged. A third party billing company is being asked to be financially responsible for the fraudulent and deceptive actions of another company. The plaintiffs might see their money again, but there will be no deterrent against the real culprit. That's not 'winning' in my book.
It sounds like Xsolla should hold the real culprit accountable then, because no one else can.
Victims hold Xsolla responsible, which then leads Xsolla to hold SBS responsible. Win, Win, Lose (for Caspian).
That solution only wins for the people who paid through Xsolla. I'm not entirely sure, but they came onto the scene relatively late, as I recall. SBS had their own store and processed money directly from customers, who are still left unsatisfied.
Xsolla *should* be eligible to join a class action suit against SBS, but losing a class action suit *might* make a potential ally hesitant to join in. The scenario you pose here infers that Xsolla would need to make a suit against SBS independently of the ongoing class action suit.
I believe Xsolla processed all store transactions.
Where is SbS getting funding to pay lawyers? Might Walsh be forced to officially fold the company and turn over all assets to the folks litigating? That is one thing the lawsuit group wants. They want to see what was really produced by SbS and if it was nothing then they want to give that to the District Attorney . At a minimum they want control of any IP. I do not see any worth to it but they do.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Except that...Xsolla did nothing unethical, you are letting your anti corporate bias cloud your reasoning.
I wouldn't go that far. Having a refund policy and then not honoring it because, gasp, you actually have to follow through on it is not exactly ethical behavior.
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
Presumably, if Xsolla collected money for SBS, they probably gave that money to SBS. Collecting from Xsolla will not necessarily extract money, only their general funds. For all we know, they may have difficulty collecting money themselves.
But saying one thing and doing another isn't always a matter for the courts to decide; it's almost a corporate mantra. If the case proceeds only against Xsolla, there is a good likelihood that it will be thrown out. That's why I see this case as failing unless they really go after SBS and their LLC.
WTF, how hard is this to understand. Xsolla takes money and offers refunds if product / services aren't delivered. Doesn't matter if they are simply a 3rd party middleman for funds between consumers and SBS. They HAVE a refund policy in place, so since SBS hasn't provided anyone with a product or service as of yet, refunds should be granted up until that happens. The only reason there's a lawsuit is that Xsolla stopped refunds.
It is entirely possible that Xsolla cannot give refunds because they forwarded most of the money collected to SBS, and SBS *may* be stiffing them too. They may only retain their fee, which won't be the entire amount paid in. Too many people are assuming that Xsolla kept the money they handled. Yes, Xsolla may have other monies in the bank, but that may be legally protected since they collected X amount for SBS, kept F amount, and paid a discounted amount Y to SBS. Y + F = X.
What happens if the lawsuit wins but only recaptures F amount? Would the plaintiffs (and lawyers) be happy? In either case, the real culprit, SBS wins.
That's why I don't think including Xsolla in the case is a winning strategy.
I’m really confused by this post. Are you contending that a lawsuit would only focus on profit for Xsolla from a specific product? That is not how this works. If the plaintiffs win, Xsolla would have to pay whatever was awarded, even if it was far more than their fees. Otherwise nobody would ever honor a contract. “Oh you bought a car from us? Well you paid $30k but our dealer profit fee was only $750 so that’s what we will pay you back”.
Maybe I just misunderstood?
The key is 'winning'. If Xsolla loses and they have to return all the money they collected (fees + SBS part), this only hurts Xsolla and not SBS. SBS appear to be the main culprits of this case, yet they would go unpunished. If the plaintiff's lawyers choose to not tackle the LLC, SBS will even go unchallenged. A third party billing company is being asked to be financially responsible for the fraudulent and deceptive actions of another company. The plaintiffs might see their money again, but there will be no deterrent against the real culprit. That's not 'winning' in my book.
It sounds like Xsolla should hold the real culprit accountable then, because no one else can.
Victims hold Xsolla responsible, which then leads Xsolla to hold SBS responsible. Win, Win, Lose (for Caspian).
That solution only wins for the people who paid through Xsolla. I'm not entirely sure, but they came onto the scene relatively late, as I recall. SBS had their own store and processed money directly from customers, who are still left unsatisfied.
Xsolla *should* be eligible to join a class action suit against SBS, but losing a class action suit *might* make a potential ally hesitant to join in. The scenario you pose here infers that Xsolla would need to make a suit against SBS independently of the ongoing class action suit.
That's true about people being left out who didn't use Xsolla, including the original KickStarter backers.
However, can a single class action lawsuit against SBS include everyone?
Since the purchases were made at different times, under different terms (KS ToS, CoE store and website ToS, and third-party payment processor terms (Xsolla)), the rulings may be different for each category?
I.E. the judge rules that purchases made through KS are entitled to refunds, but purchases made through the website store are not... or whatever outcome.
I am asking because I genuinely don't know how it works.
Wait, what?!? They are still making the game aren't they?? Doesn't explain why they are being sued... they are ditching the project!? REALLY?!?
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
LMAO i wonder if someone did the math behind that? The lawyer is going to add on money on top of that set price.They ALWAYS find a way and legally.So this will be a cost considered outside the lawsuit.
So as the case gets longer,more drawn out there will be a push to spend even more to get it done.I would be absolutely shocked if it ends up ONLY 35%.
This is a win win for the lawyer,he gets paid no matter what.often a legit lawyer will simply feel by pressuring the defendant they will force some money out but i very highly doubt this works here.
I made an account just to respond to this because it's not often I get to talk about the Rules of Professional Conduct, and I am studying for the National Professional Responsibility Exam (a requirement before taking the bar in the United States).
Lawyers are a highly regulated class. Popular portrayals make it seem like lawyers are snakes who can conjure money from their kerchiefs, but, in reality, lawyers are some of the only professionals ethically required to snitch on each other or risk significant punishment.
What this lawyer and the putative class entered into is called a contingent fee arrangement. For some actions, lawyers are required to only charge per hour. However, in cases where plaintiffs are too poor and the action involves recovery of funds, lawyers and clients can agree to a contingent fee arrangement where the lawyer recovers a percentage of the client's winnings. Usually this is allowed to be within the 30-40% range because the lawyer is taking on significant risk. If the case is a loser, the lawyer goes unpaid for her time, which may run into the hundreds of hours. Litigation is a slog, and it takes significant time and resources.
If the action is short-lived and the lawyer does not do a lot of work (e.g., the case settles easily with only a few hours of work required), it is unethical for her to accept a contingency fee; she may recover compensation for her work at her usual hourly rate, which is well below 30-40%.
Unless the lawyer and client contract to some reimbursement if the case loses, the lawyer receives nothing unless his client wins. So, in this case, the lawyer is not conning folks. Furthermore, you mention that the lawyer will just pressure the defendant to "force some money out," by which I take you to mean a settlement. A lawyer cannot agree to a settlement arrangement without the consent of the client-- in this case the class of individuals. If the lawyer goes behind the client's back and accepts a settlement on the client's behalf, the lawyer could be disbarred or heavily sanctioned monetarily or otherwise.
To sum up my little lesson, the attorney in this case is not doing anything unusual, is taking on a risky venture, and will not get paid no matter what but only in case he or she wins. If the plaintiffs win, the attorney will only be able to take 35% of the winnings, unless the clients contractually agreed to other fee arrangements (so the attorney cannot "add money"). Adding on additional fees after the fact without notice to clients is also a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Fantastic. Now those guys who threw thousands of dollars at this can instead throw that money at the next Kickstarter that promises them some nice exclusive features
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
Fantastic. Now those guys who threw thousands of dollars at this can instead throw that money at the next Kickstarter that promises them some nice exclusive features
They are already discussing an almost identical game that involves ships. You can buy in now and get yourself an exclusive title like Duke or Prince. I shit you not.
I wanted to WTF your post @Slapshot1188 but thought you might take it as an insult so here is my explanation. But damn another game where they try to fleece people ........
Fantastic. Now those guys who threw thousands of dollars at this can instead throw that money at the next Kickstarter that promises them some nice exclusive features
They are already discussing an almost identical game that involves ships. You can buy in now and get yourself an exclusive title like Duke or Prince. I shit you not.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
Fantastic. Now those guys who threw thousands of dollars at this can instead throw that money at the next Kickstarter that promises them some nice exclusive features
They are already discussing an almost identical game that involves ships. You can buy in now and get yourself an exclusive title like Duke or Prince. I shit you not.
Comments
This is a separate issue that is in no way in the same category of sleaze as what SBS did but it doesn't take anti corporate bias to demand that they honor their own provision. A provision they have there specifically to attract more business.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
What would be wrong was demanding that Xsolla refund them if there was no such refund clause. But there is... and I still for the life of me cannot understand why you think it is ethical for a company to ignore what they said they would do.
I get the idea that "Hey the contract says X but these customers are dumb-asses so I hope they feel pain" but that is a far cry from saying it's unethical to expect a company to actually stand by what they guaranteed.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The old terms were actually that creator had to either fulfill rewards or refund and there isn't a third option. Now that you made that longer quote, those new terms have third option where the creator can fail without giving neither the rewards nor refunds.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Then Xsolla can likely attempt to acquire the money they used for refunds from SBS later on, but that's a matter for between Xsolla and SBS. People aren't assuming that Xsolla could do it.
Maybe I just misunderstood?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
funding a MMO through Kickstarter is ludicrous to start with. It had to be obvious from the start that the chances of getting anything for their money was slim to start with.
I just do not see that they have any case to stand on. Stupid is as stupid does.
I would love to see Caspian do that.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
What, to be a Man? - lmao hahahahahahahahahaha oh man you're killing me...
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Where is SbS getting funding to pay lawyers? Might Walsh be forced to officially fold the company and turn over all assets to the folks litigating? That is one thing the lawsuit group wants. They want to see what was really produced by SbS and if it was nothing then they want to give that to the District Attorney . At a minimum they want control of any IP. I do not see any worth to it but they do.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
I made an account just to respond to this because it's not often I get to talk about the Rules of Professional Conduct, and I am studying for the National Professional Responsibility Exam (a requirement before taking the bar in the United States).
Lawyers are a highly regulated class. Popular portrayals make it seem like lawyers are snakes who can conjure money from their kerchiefs, but, in reality, lawyers are some of the only professionals ethically required to snitch on each other or risk significant punishment.
What this lawyer and the putative class entered into is called a contingent fee arrangement. For some actions, lawyers are required to only charge per hour. However, in cases where plaintiffs are too poor and the action involves recovery of funds, lawyers and clients can agree to a contingent fee arrangement where the lawyer recovers a percentage of the client's winnings. Usually this is allowed to be within the 30-40% range because the lawyer is taking on significant risk. If the case is a loser, the lawyer goes unpaid for her time, which may run into the hundreds of hours. Litigation is a slog, and it takes significant time and resources.
If the action is short-lived and the lawyer does not do a lot of work (e.g., the case settles easily with only a few hours of work required), it is unethical for her to accept a contingency fee; she may recover compensation for her work at her usual hourly rate, which is well below 30-40%.
Unless the lawyer and client contract to some reimbursement if the case loses, the lawyer receives nothing unless his client wins. So, in this case, the lawyer is not conning folks. Furthermore, you mention that the lawyer will just pressure the defendant to "force some money out," by which I take you to mean a settlement. A lawyer cannot agree to a settlement arrangement without the consent of the client-- in this case the class of individuals. If the lawyer goes behind the client's back and accepts a settlement on the client's behalf, the lawyer could be disbarred or heavily sanctioned monetarily or otherwise.
To sum up my little lesson, the attorney in this case is not doing anything unusual, is taking on a risky venture, and will not get paid no matter what but only in case he or she wins. If the plaintiffs win, the attorney will only be able to take 35% of the winnings, unless the clients contractually agreed to other fee arrangements (so the attorney cannot "add money"). Adding on additional fees after the fact without notice to clients is also a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"A fool and their money..."
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/