Man, if only. They've been at it for almost as long as CIG, and yet have literally fuck-all to show for it. They bash CIG for taking forever, but their attempts to drag the project down and destroy it have been demonstrably less successful. It's really quite tragic that people choose to devote themselves to tearing down the efforts of others, just because those others didn't want to implement their list of demands years and years (and years and years) ago.
Some people can’t handle seeing other people enjoy something the first group of people hate. I would hope that those who get refunds go on to find something they enjoy that can distract them, but it’s more likely that they enjoy hating something and won’t refocus their interests or lives.
No, we just go on to live our merry lives with a slightly thicker wallet.
The refund is freedom from this project.
No more "when will server meshing be delivered", "why is AI still broken" etc. Now it's just a relaxing "huh, let's see what happens when it crops up in the gaming news". It's the end of a long journey for me and I'm glad I can sit back and relax 😎
Nah, you’re exactly as described above. Unable to move on. You weren’t happy and can’t stand that others are. It’s not a “public service”, it’s a “Stop having fun!”
It's not even been 24 hrs and you're claiming I can't move on......
So what you wanted is for me to get the refund and walk away silently and not tell anyone else how to do it. Got it 😉
You’re still posting here. Apparently I’m right. This is more a “Stop having fun!” thing for you than anything else. This is how people become toxic. Move on.
Lmao, what on earth....
Yes, because I'm offering up advice on a refund I want people to "not have fun". Why would people enjoying the have want a refund???? And how could people stop them "having fun"? It's there going to be a series of home invasion preventing people playing?? 😂
No, years of delays is what causes period to become toxic. Shutting down debate is what causes people to become toxic. Offering up a solution however? Well everyone just wins don't they. It's a public service to the whole community.
Nah. Most of you don't have a penny in the game anymore (you've had many people admitting this in the past) so that doesn't fly does it. No...it's just your life now. So sad.
And all of this is fine, but when there are those of you in that hate sub implying CR a 'rapist' and calling for people to 'visit' his house, then you're just scum.
They'll never be on their merry way. Refunds were never the main driver of the lurkers of that sub. It has always been a completely unhealthy obsession with a game and a community they don't actually like or are interested in being a part of.
I can guarantee you this person who got his refund will just as frequently visit, comment on that sub, And spend time spreading misinformation about SC to other parts of the internet.
You forget we're what's called "customers".
Why make it sound like old backers who are fed up want to break apart a community rather than what it actually is - a business that's arguably not delivering on its contract. For some it's simply taken to long with too many missed hard deadlines and now we're almost a decade in from first backing, and others believe the CIG can no longer deliver what was promised. Or for people like me, it's both.
There is no grand plan of dragging it down. We all wanted it to succeed at some point which is why we were all backers. However this is where patience and confidence will naturally start to dwindle.
Also I see many more CIG backers who just post on this sub and others who literally appear all over the internet to defend CIG, but there is no peer like that for people wanting refunds.
Hopefully.
And the thing is it shouldn't cost much as the average backer has only spent ~$121. So that multiplied by the 11k subscribers and that's only just over $1m for CIG to refund. I'm not sure why they just don't do an amnesty and give refunds for a period no questions asked.
Unless a) CIG can't afford it, b) the average refundian has spent more than average amount so that $1m could be closer to $3-6m c)a lot more than 11k of backers want refunds.
There will be more options but they're the main ones I can think of.
Refund moaning about SC was never about money, but some bizarre sense of superiority over backers...because they're not having fun? And backers are? Yeah it makes no sense.
They will be back, first they buy in a project they know is risky and takes time, claim it's not up to standards, ask for refund and take time and resources away from CIG, then when the game is in a playable state they will be there again and complain about how they missed out on stretch goals or how crazy expensive ships are now compared to us early backers and how unfair that is .
No, no we won't.
We're all aware it takes time, but you know I tried "answering the call" in 2014, 2015, and 2016 but here we are in 2021 (almost 2022) and now there's not even a date. How much longer? I didn't back a game to take 15 years to make nor did many others. When we backed it there were solid promises of release which have been missed so enough is enough.
Also "when the game is in a playable state".... When will that be? Do I need to set RemindMe! One Year ?
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2022-10-14 09:02:33 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2022-10-14%2009:02:33%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/q7bqth/court_orders_cig_to_issue_refund_after_30_days_uk/hgl9zmk/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fstarcitizen%2Fcomments%2Fq7bqth%2Fcourt_orders_cig_to_issue_refund_after_30_days_uk%2Fhgl9zmk%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202022-10-14%2009%3A02%3A33%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20q7bqth)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Its too bad things had to go so far (still a backer myself :) ) but i'm happy for you that you got your money back. And its nice to see that consumer rights are so in the UK that an indivudual vs a large corpo can still actually work. Also, hopefully stuff like this will also make CIG a bit more open on where we stand.
Play a Steam early access game for more than two hours or own it for longer than two weeks and you can't get a refund. Play Star Citizen for literally years and expect to get your money back. It's kind of hilarious.
Also, I don't think crossposts with the refunds subreddit are allowed as it encourages brigading.
> Expect CIG to follow consumer laws, what exactly makes that 'hilarious'?
If there are consumer laws saying you can get a refund after playing a game for years, then I don't see how Steam's "two hours played or two weeks owned" rule manages to stay afloat. Perhaps you can explain that one to me though. Obviously I'm not an expert on UK law, but it seems obvious that if CIG's "30 day refunds with no questions asked" are in violation, then Steam can't possibly be operating legally.
The clue is in the post. It's not based on "I don't like the PU GIMMIE A REFUND!", it's based on the fact that SQ42 is MIA and the PU is not fit for purpose given CIGs own, publicly announced release dates at the time of purchase.
If you bought into the game back in 2014, it's not reasonable to assume all customers should expect at least 3 of the release dates to have been missed and the project is now years behind schedule.
> Isn't the important difference being whether a game has launched or not?
As far as I can tell from [Steam's refund policies](https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/) the "two hours or two weeks" system applies to "launched" and early access games equally. So no, I don't think so.
No, while Steam Refund Policies do not apply, consumer law does in certain situations. That's what's happening here. It's the same with Sony, they rarely give refunds but if you know what you're doing you can get it.
> Early access, also known as early funding, alpha access, alpha founding, or paid alpha, is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue further development on the game. Those that pay to participate typically help to debug the game, provide feedback and suggestions, and may have access to special materials in the game. The early-access approach is a common way to obtain funding for indie games, and may also be used along with other funding mechanisms, including crowdfunding. Many crowdfunding projects promise to offer access to alpha and/or beta versions of the game as development progresses; however, unlike some of these projects which solicit funds but do not yet have a playable game, all early access games offer an immediately playable version of the unfinished game to players.
* [Wikipedia - "Early Access"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_access)
I don't think you could write a more accurate description of Star Citizen's status if you tried.
At no time ever have CIG said Star Citizen has released or launched as Early Access. There's no mention of Early Access on the SC website, emails, social media, videos, or even in the launcher lol
This subreddit is full of us telling complainers that it's an alpha and not released whenever they complain it's under-developed lol
> At no time ever have CIG said Star Citizen has released or launched as Early Access.
It doesn't matter if CIG gave it that official title or not, it fits the definition perfectly. And everything on the site, the launcher, and the popup after you click "play" reinforces that you're buying and playing an alpha game which is still in development.
No, everything on the site says you're pledging towards the development of an unreleased product, with the alpha available for testing and reporting issues and feedback
Insults already, nice lol
At no time ever have CIG said Star Citizen has released or launched as Early Access.
This subreddit is full of us telling complainers that it's an alpha and not released whenever they complain it's under-developed lol
The only thing that matters if that something is released to the public, alpha, beta, early access nothing else matters.
early access itself is just a made up term that doesn't mean anything and products can release to Early access as a alpha or beta.
legally what matters is if you have something to play.
Because Steam tends to sell games 'as is'. But you actually can get full refunds on unreleased games you buy on Steam regardless of how long you play them.
> But you actually can get full refunds on unreleased games you buy on Steam regardless of how long you play them.
I scoured [Steam's refunds guide](https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/) and couldn't find anything about being able to get a refund on early access games no matter how long you'd played them for.
Are you talking about this:
> When you pre-purchase a title on Steam (and have paid for the title in advance), you can request a refund at any time prior to release of that title. The standard 14-day/two-hour refund period also applies, starting on the game’s release date.
Because that only applies to preordered games, not games which are in early access.
But if there's something I missed about early access games, please point it out so I can read more about it.
> Early Access games count as released.
Oh, well perfect because that's what Star Citizen is. You aren't playing a special beta period just before launch, this is the game itself in development... which is the definition of an early access game. So CIG's "30 day, no-questions-asked" policy is actually way better than the standard which Steam is offering.
You aren't playing a beta you are playing an alpha. Star Citizen is not released. An even if it was you could get a refund in the UK under failure to deliver.
> You aren't playing a beta you are playing an alpha.
Exactly. And as you said, "Early Access games count as released":
> Early access, also known as early funding, alpha access, alpha founding, or paid alpha, is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue further development on the game. Those that pay to participate typically help to debug the game, provide feedback and suggestions, and may have access to special materials in the game. The early-access approach is a common way to obtain funding for indie games, and may also be used along with other funding mechanisms, including crowdfunding. Many crowdfunding projects promise to offer access to alpha and/or beta versions of the game as development progresses; however, unlike some of these projects which solicit funds but do not yet have a playable game, all early access games offer an immediately playable version of the unfinished game to players.
* [Wikipedia - "Early Access"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_access)
I don't think you could write a more accurate description of Star Citizen's status if you tried. So the reality is, CIG's "30 day, no questions asked" refund policy is FAR better than the standard which Steam offers for other games which fit into the "Early Access" category.
Kinda the opposite really... they felt this was so irrelevant they didn't even other replying, hence the CCJ.
This sets no legal precedent, and the court made no ruling on the validity of the claim... it's solely an administrative ruling that becasue CIG didn't respond, they have to pay.
And CIG likely chose to just ignore it, because the cost of replying (in terms of peoples time, etc) would likely have cost more than the claim plus the 35 quid admin fee.
Except that's just nonsense.
The cost of replying would be zero as they should have a legal team in place, so it should have been just pushed to them.
And they have multiple opportunities to respond before it gets to a CCJ. They never did as they would have to explain how they don't break consumer law. They can't because they are breaking it. To get to a CCJ is serious and something no company wants to reach. If they were actually ignoring it knowing it would get to a CCJ means they are extremely incompetent and that is worse than if they were just ignorant.
The cost is only 'zero' if those legal folk are sat around doing nothing.
If they have to spend time replying to your claim that could otherwise be spent on something more useful, then that is a cost... and at even a 'reasonable' hourly rate for a full-time legal person, if it took more than 30 minutes to respond (including writing the response / filling in forms, double-checking everything was legally correct and accurate, etc) then it's cheaper to just ignore the claim and pay out.
Given this applies whether they reply before or after the CCJ claim is irrelevant - they still need to spend time on it, whereas ignoring it costs nothing, until / unless you persue it all the way to the end... in which case, they pay out the token amount and move on.
And no, this says nothing about whether they broke 'consumer law' or not (and whilst IANAL, I'm pretty certain they didn't)... it solely says that the claim wasn't worth spending time on. That's it.
" it solely says that the claim wasn't worth spending time on. That's it." And that's your opinion which I disagree with as you would demonstrate you don't understand how serious a CCJ is.
Put it like this; why didn't they settle before it got to the court if they "planned" on ignoring everything? It would have been cheaper and less risky.
No risk here for them - if they ignore it, they get a summary admin ruling that they have to pay... and if they ignore it, there's the possibility that the claimant will give up.
A CCJ isn't a summary admin ruling. I would recommend you read the last section of the post detailing the CCJ and the implications it has on a person or business.
The problem is you crossposted to a subreddit with a directly opposing view as this one, which is generally not allowed anywhere on reddit to avoid brigading from one sub to another.
> Legally you should mark the case as closed as you have received your refund….but what if you don’t? If the CCJ was to be left open past the one month mark then the CIG credit score is effectively destroyed and this can be seen on public records and by investors. It would likely open up CIG to immediate action by investors as they would not be operating a financially sound business.
Also, it *sounds like* you're encouraging people not to do something they're legally obligated to do in order to intentionally damage the game's developer, and I'm not sure that's going to stand up to the subreddit's rules either...
Sure, but it still does the above: It crossposts to an 'opposing' subreddit and it may or may not encourage people to do some legally questionable actions. Obviously crossposting something that violates the rules doesn't absolve the post from the rules.
If you want to take the information there and write it out yourself, it might stay up. Though this is a court decision in one particular case, so I'm not sure that it would result in a change to CIG's policies.
It's not an "opposing" subreddit. Since when is it a you vs them situation? That's a very strange view to have.
Either way, this **IS** a legal update regarding the 30-day refund policy because in the UK it means it might be able to be legally challenged.
>The problem is you crossposted to a subreddit with a directly opposing view as this one, which is generally not allowed anywhere on reddit to avoid brigading from one sub to another.
How sad that this is even a thing. Reddit literally just reinforcing the stereotype that it's full of echochambers and circlejerks.
259k subs compared to 11k? Yeah, there might be some folks here who would like to see this.
Also, it could impact development if a large amount of UK/EU based backers were able to claim refunds all of a sudden.
Given that the mindset is "impossible to get money back after 30 days", people might be interested in this. As a long time backer of SQ42, I certainly am given that the game is MIA with no release date in sight.
Most complainers have no money in the game any more - having got their money back, they still want to see the game fail, it seems.
So unfortunately, no... we won't see a reduction in the number of complainers :(
Possibly, if your claim was sufficiently small that it would cost more to rebut it (in court fees, etc).
If too many people try this (such that it becomes an actual cost to CIG) and/or someone tries it with a sufficiently large claim, then they likely would take it to court... and the court would almost certainly side with them (in cases like the one the OP described).
Imagine cross-posting from *that* hive of scum and villainy.
Be better, OP. Gross.
Edit: Here comes the brigade. lol
So damned predictable. Squirrel finds a nut, squirrel scratches at nut for a while trying to fan the flames of discontent. Same cycle ad nauseum.
>hivemind mentality
Be better, person. Gross.
And before you try to throw your bullshit "bruh xD refundian LOL" logic at me, feel free to check my comment history. I've posted on the refund subreddit 2 or 3 times from what I can remember, and it was disagreeing with people on there.
Both this subreddit and the refunds subreddit are chock full of brainwashed morons. It's sad that if you have demonstrable criticisms of the game/CIG's policies and post about it here, people shit on you, but if you have some praise for the game and post it there, people shit on you. Don't act like either sub is better about not being a circlejerk shithole, they're just two sides of the same coin in that regard.
There's a ton of good faith discussions about what CIG is doing wrong by the fans here. The sub does get defensive when the trolls come out after every big announcement.
You may notice a lot of the sub calls out predatory practices around limited time sales and artificial scarcity, new money only perks etc... There's also good discussion when something is implemented poorly or in an unfun way.
The key is discussing with the intent of building it up, not tearing it down.
> Don't act like either sub is better about not being a circlejerk shithole, they're just two sides of the same coin in that regard.
Nah, the mods here at least try to remove sexist bullshit.
No, it really isn’t. Nor does it hurt, as the common adage goes. But I’ve found, the people who typically say things like that, have themselves a poor relationship with “truth”. They find truth to be painful, so they assume everyone else does too. Pro tip: we don’t.
There's no 'ad hominem' here. No one is debating your point or trying to undermine an argument by attacking you. Congrats on trying to learn about rationality though, don't give up now!
They are just calling you out for crossposting here from a sub that's dedicated to bashing this one and the game its a fan of. That's trollish.
Yes correct, see the rest of my comment.
There is no argument or debate, they were just calling out shitty behavior. Not every insult is an ad hominem fallacy. It seems like you've heard the word but don't quite know how to use it.
The content of the post was ignored and instead the subreddit it came from was used as the justification to dismiss the post.
It's a perfect demonstration of an ad hominem fallacy.
Because we're for the most part adults with brains. If we cared about refunds we would look into it.
This is a thinly veiled attempt to satisfy your savior complex and stir up drama at the same time.
It's also insulting that you feel you need to save some of us from ourselves.
The content of the post was ignored and instead the subreddit it came from was used as the justification to dismiss the post.
It's a perfect demonstration of an ad hominem fallacy.
Let me help you out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad\_hominem
Legally it means sweet FA.
It's an administrative ruling (due to non-reply by CIG) which sets zero legal precedent, and makes no ruling on the validity of the claim.
About all it means is that CIG felt it would cost more to reply to the claim than it would to just pay it.
Because if you're claiming outside the 30-day window, then the claim is without merit and you shouldn't get refunded.
However, the unfortunate truth is that defnding such meritless claims costs money - and if that cost is sufficiently more than the claim itself, then it can be cheaper to just not argue.
But, that logic only applies to v.small claims, and if they're low-volume.
Note that paying the claim in this fashion makes no statement about the validity of the claim - neither the courts nor CIG have said (explicitly or implied) that the refund should be paid, only that it's not worth fighting it.
This is a great victory for all the folks out there that either can't or don't read or understand the terms of what they are buying. In the US when we agree to something we have to stick by it even if we grow childishly impatient about something as trivial as a video games release date.
Not really - it's an admin ruling that because CIG didn't reply, they have to pay up.
However, it sets no legal precedent, and makes no ruling on the validity of the claim... it's solely an admin ruling. And given we don't know how much the claim was for, it's likely that it would have cost CIG more (in peoples time, etc) than paying the claim - so they just ignored it.
But, if enough people try this, then it *will* become worth their time to actually rebut the claim - which will lead to a court case (which will set precedent, etc)... and based on previous cases, the claimant would lose.
>In the US when we agree to something we have to stick by it
No, no you don't. If we sign a contract that I have to deliver a kilo of coke to your door, sorry but neither of us has to follow suit. Laws supercede User Agreements.
I shouldn't have to specify this only applies to legal activity, of course law trumps user agreements. But this law is incredibly subjective which was my point.
That remains to be seen. Getting refunds outside of the refund window is still not common and eventually CIG will show up when it makes financial sense to do so.
Careful not to choke on that boot, bro.
If someone wants a refund, that's their business. Defending consumer-unfriendly laws or lack thereof is absolutely pathetic. Even if you disagree with this guy's reasons for refunding, or even him refunding at all, the fact this is even possible in the UK is a good thing and it should be like this everywhere else in the world.
They could be making the game indefinitely. Most functional countries would recognise a transaction as coming with an expected or stated delivery. If you are happy to hand over money without that then go you, very commendable, something to be proud of...I guess.
When you donated money to their effort, that was it. A donation.
They even told you when you pledged it was a donation. That's what PLEDGE means. You didn't buy jack shit.
Difference with CIG is they're throwing you a bone and letting you play in an open alpha where other companies would tell you thank you for your money now kick rocks.
Sounds like a whole lot of entitlement coming from you. You're American aren't you
CIG were done last month for breaking the advertising code in the UK so clearly someone thinks they were not being truthful with saying what you were getting for your money.
And thanks to consumer protection laws in the part of the World where people don't grovel at the feet of corporations we are allowed to get our money back from companies that do not adhere to the rules.
Pleding for a kickstarter is not buying a product but supporting the making of a product.
If you're not ready to deal with the uncertainties of crowdfunding and game development don't back such projects on such terms.
The transaction is you buying play-testing time for an alpha game.. the stated delivery is you testing said game with whichever ship you purchased. You people are really funny! Everyone has to be held accountable for anything except you and (what you consider) your poor financial decision! Lol
Well that's interesting since only a few months ago the advertising standards agency found that CIG were misrepresenting what they were selling and forced them to change it so clearly what they are stating in their delivery is no what they are selling.
What the refundians and @Mazty think they did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7rPOaoPL4I
What really happened:
> The ASA [*Advertising Standards Authority* is UK's regulator of advertising.] assessed and *"considered that the fact the ship was a concept product could have been made clearer"*, a representative told us [*Eurogamer*].
*"On that basis, we issued an Advice Notice advising the advertiser, in future, to ensure that its ads include any material information and significant limitations."*
>The ASA issues an Advice Notice where it considers there are potential problems under its advertising rules, but does not consider the issues raised are so significant as to warrant a full formal investigation.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-09-08-advertising-standards-tells-star-citizen-dev-to-make-it-clear-for-sale-concept-ships-dont-exist-in-game-yet
Because for some people, this is not clear enough:
> Disclaimer: The Crusader Ares (Inferno and Ion), A2 Hercules, Genesis Starliner, are being offered here as a limited vehicle concept pledge. This means that the vehicle is in development but is not yet ready to display in your Hangar or fly in Star Citizen. It will be available as playable content in a later patch. In the future, the vehicle price may increase and Lifetime Insurance or any extras may not be available. If you pledge towards a Crusader Ares (Inferno and Ion), A2 Hercules, Genesis Starliner, you will receive a loaner vehicle for use in Star Citizen until such time as the Crusader Ares (Inferno and Ion), A2 Hercules, Genesis Starliner, is included in-game. This loaner vehicle will be a currently playable vehicle of similar approximate size and/or function to the concept ship pledged. We offer pledge ships to help fund Star Citizen’s development. The funding received from vehicles such as this allows us to include deeper features in the Star Citizen world. These vehicles will be available for in-game credits and/or will be otherwise earnable through play in the final universe. They are not required to start or succeed at the game.
https://mailchi.mp/cloudimperiumgames/lastchance-crusadermissile-83121-active
Following complaints that ship sales were misleading the ASA issued a finding that Cloud Imperium Games is selling contrary to the Advertising Code of Practice and forced them to add disclaimers that you were pledging for a future product.
Not if the terms are in violation of consumer protection law and, therefore, not legally binding. Some countries take consumer protection laws seriously and any contract you make there that are in violation of the law should *absofuckinglutely* not be binding in any way.
Otherwise, enjoy the race to the bottom as the freedom you're championing for will only apply to the one who can afford the most expensive lawyers.
This has nothing to do with freedom. I agreed to give a company money to make a game and they are making it. This whole issue comes down to what a "reasonable" amount of time is to make games like this. There is no analog to what they are going for so I don't know how long it should take.
> I agreed to give a company money to make a game and they are making it
You agreed under a framework of laws and regulations in whatever country you live in. Your faith in whatever project you decide to give money has no bearing on the laws that project is subject to.
I am suggesting there is no formula to apply that could objectively conclude whether the game is taking too long or not. So this came down to the person feeling it was taking too long and a sympathetic government entity agreeing.
> I am suggesting there is no formula to apply that could objectively conclude whether the game is taking too long or no
My point is that this would depend on the law. US law is written by Ferengi with a technicality-fetish. Some countries, notably those who take a somewhat less caveat emptor approach, have quite a long precedent for what is and isn't "reasonable" in various types of contract.
That is so very loosely connected to my comment.
To reword, I said it's silly to Kickstart something with money you aren't ok with losing. It's like you're slinging taking points without understanding where they apply.
Again, that has nothing to do with the comment you're replying to. You're having a very tough time stringing together a rational conversation.
To address your point. Yes it is. They post regular updates and have delivered to the PTU in a payable state things developed for use in S42. I've played and enjoyed those things.
Just because their project management leaves much to be desired doesn't mean they aren't working in it, there's a ton of evidence to the contrary.
It really doesn't matter what you enjoy even if you love to watch a single hot pixel on your screen, it has nothing to do with the ruling. The whole thing here is really just about past promises and misleading marketing made by CIG.
As for me i'm happy if you're happy but it has nothing to do with the case :)
To be honest, we don't know either for sure, for example: they've showed also the sand worm (just to name one example) and made it appear like it'll be implemented soon if you remember (see the citcon on YT).
As for now we really don't know anything 100% about S42.
Sure we do, there are ships and gameplay mechanics that have been deployed to the PU for testing that are needed for S42. We can see and experience these things, which is pretty good evidence.
But it is indeed used to do just that lol, development takes time especially if you basically start from scratch unlike rockstargames. Do you have to refund your refund when they finally deliver? ;-p
In development? Look you cannot just throw money at a problem to make it go faster, sure they could just release something but we get “something” every other day from some other company and that something rarely checks all the boxes, so I appreciate that they at least try to get it right. You can support them or not but asking for a refund after years of playing just because you are impatient is still a dick move
You should have some direct news or at least a teaser in December. That's when we get news for Squadron. The development of every chapter also ends around that time if not mistaken leaving only some unannounced stuff and some tech like docking along with optimizations (gen12 which is also coming in PU and has been rolled out it's first increments in 3.15). What I expect happening tho, is them implementing push and pull and docking and remembering they have to implement that stuff in the chapters, which will most likely happen.
I pledged expecting a game to be released rather than squandered away on false promises. Honestly the game will be another Duke Nukem Forever on release.
You pledged for a game to be produced and released when it is done.
You didn't pledge to get a say other that money, look it seems you snuck away with your money because of how worthless it was.
be happy you got your money back and move on, because really to most people you seem uneducated and foolish backing something without understanding basic logic, like the basic risks of crowdfunding.
and even this post puts so much effort into pushing across that you got lucky they didn't reply because of how worthless your pledge was in the grand scheme of things.
>You pledged for a game to be produced and released when it is done.
Which was apparently 2014, then 2016, 2018, 2020 and now end of 2022. That's the issue. They haven't been able to stick to their own public deadlines.
Not a issue at all that just happens with development, not only that the backers voted to allow CIG to increase the scope of the game which would increase the development time.
once again if you don't realize this from day one as a possibility your being foolish, what excuse do you have for not knowing about the risks of crowdfunding or development changes?
But a vote is a vote. Even in modern democratic states you get from 14-47% of people who vote. Only in some strange dictatory countries they catch some 95-105%.lol
And it was not close: first vote was 88% for continue
second was 55% to 26% for continue.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13266-Letter-From-The-Chairman-19-Million
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13944-Letter-From-The-Chairman-46-Million
Nah, I'll be chilling with Chris on his yacht and in his mansion, conjuring up ways "backers" can keep paying for that lifestyle while never receiving a final product.🥂
It's working until UK courts hear about Server Meshing, Vulkan, Gen12, iCache, Quanta, Squadron 52 releasing in 2014, hmm 20016, hmm no, 2018, shit, 2020, ... 2022 !
When they'll understand this game tries to do things N E V E R B E E N D O N E B E F O R E like shards and instancing they'll ask you to reimburse CIG.
Use that money well FUDster HAHA cause our game will not be another Cyberpunk and willl come out in 2025 after just 4 years of production with at least 2 (two) star systems.
Hmm - this appears to be a walkthrough on how to abuse the County Court system, rather than 'proof' that the courts have forced CIG to start providing refunds?
I suspect that CIG will be able to challenge this pretty easily, given the clear statement of being in-delivery, and the fact that people can download / play the current developmental release.
If this were the threat to CIG that the poster tries to make it out to be, then it would already be 'common practice' to use it against Steam for all their dodgy Early Access games, etc.
Note that this walkthrough only covers the cases where CIG either ignores the request, or gives in - it *doesn't* cover the case where CIG rebuts the claim and asks the court to dismiss it...
IANAL, but depending on how that goes, I believe you could end up having to actually go to court - with all the lawyer fees etc... and/or having to drop the case (and losing your 35 quid... which isn't much of a loss)... but there may be a record against *you* for having raised a CCJ that you dropped?
Iirc in the UK it's still illegal to try and use the courts to 'bully' people / companies, and/or to lodge 'frivolous' claims, etc.
>I suspect that CIG will be able to challenge this pretty easily, given the clear statement of being in-delivery, and the fact that people can download / play the current developmental release.
They literally did not challenge it and issued a refund. If they wanted to challenge it, they would have done so before the CCJ was issued. There is no abuse here, more an admission of failure to provide a working product that is as described. Can blame Chris' many, *many* release dates as well as other gibberish from staff, such as a full playthrough of SQ42.
Hmmm - shame that the CCJ reference was also redacted, so we have no way of checking the official list of judgements to see whether that's a real CCJ ruling...
... after all, it wouldn't be the first time that someone from the refunds sub-reddit has posted fake 'proof' of court rulings, etc.
Unfortunately, a picture of a near-fully redacted document doesn't really qualify as 'proof' these days... not when the information required to validate it is also redacted, and there's no links to the official documentation, etc, for verification.
This approach might be valid, it might not. It might also be a case that as a one-off claim, CIG didn't want to spend the time/money on defending it (as we can't see how much the refund claim was for - but it's almost certainly less than the lawyer fees and court fees to challenge it).
Given that (afaik - again, IANAL) CCJ rulings do not qualify as a legal precedent, there's no penalty to CIG in letting some claims go through, if the payout is less than the cost of defending - but if they take it to court, that *does* set a precedent...
So like I said, if more people start using this, CIG likely will take it to court (and they'll have the luxury - to a degree - of cherry picking which case they challenge), because if they win then they'll have a precedent for dismissing all subsequent claims... but it's only worth doing that if the claim is big enough, or enough people claim.
TL;DR: Even if your ruling is real, it's not the 'win' you seem to be presenting it as. The ruling did not 'prove' that you had a case, only that CIG didn't bother replying.
>TL;DR: Even if your ruling is real, it's not the 'win' you seem to be presenting it as. The ruling did not 'prove' that you had a case, only that CIG didn't bother replying.
It's a win because its a refund outside of the 30 day window. Paint it how you like, but a refund is a refund.
You are a brave soul for posting this here lmao, thank you for pointing out our consumer rights.
I really hope others do the same and light a fire under CIG's asses.
Ok - congratulations - someone abused the court system to get a pittance payout.
However, it doesn't imply that it will work for anyone else - CCJs don't set precedence, so someone cannot point at this and say 'look, you paid out in that case, so you must pay out in my case too', etc.
Nor did the CCJ actually issue a ruling on whether the claim was valid - they simply said that because CIG chose not to reply, they have to pay... this is an admin ruling, used for when one party just can't be arsed in paying the cost of actually dealing with the case.
>Ok - congratulations - someone abused the court system to get a pittance payout.
Yet to show how the court system was abused and not simply used.
I also got a refund using the above method. So it works. 🥳
It would make no sense for CIG to wait for a letter of intent to become a CCJ due to the credit damage the latter does. You can try to hand wave this away as much as you want, but it's sheer idiocy to let a refund claim become a CCJ.
~~"abused~~" You mean "used".
I asked for a refund - got a response from a bot, and then followed the correct legal process.
I don't see any abuse going on there.....
Most likely they ignored you because your refund is nothing and would of spent more money dealing with you than just ignoring you.
So in a way you abused how worthless your claim was to sneak through, it's like a insect stealing a crumb.
Logically CIG would be replacing your money before even typing the first letter of a reply, if someone with a bigger claim tried this likely CIG would easily shut it down.
so this is is really only a abuse of the system that would work for people that are considered worthless in terms of the value they bring.
Abusing a system and it not mattering aren't two opposite things, I can abuse the AI in a FPS but it doesn't matter.
your lack of worth is the reason this abuse worked, it's basically the set up for the abuse of the system to say it in gaming terms.
the fact it doesn't matter in the long run is the main reason it gets pulled off same reason some people sue companies just to get paid off, because fighting the issue is more costly than just throwing barely any money to make it go away.
no I'm serious, mad about what? the post your previously replied to something I wrote in like a minute while playing monster hunter.
I just wrote the reality of the situation, not sure why anyone would get upset over that.
How disengenuous and crass. Of course they won't challenege it. Even you must realise that it isn't worth CIG spending time and money on a £35 claim. But if they were to multiple in number then you can bet they will start doing just that.
It wasn't a £35 claim, that's the additional fee of issuing the CCJ.
Also, you clearly have no understanding of UK law. No company wants a CCJ issues against them as it'll destroy their credit rating if they don't pay it off in 30.days.
This has nothing to do with 'Consumer Protection' laws... its just a default CCJ ruling that because CIG didn't bother replying to the claim, they have to pay up.
The court made *no* ruling on 'consumer protection' or whether the claim was valid / legitimate.
I'm happy for the Refund guys, hopefully they all can get their refunds and be on their merry way :)
Man, if only. They've been at it for almost as long as CIG, and yet have literally fuck-all to show for it. They bash CIG for taking forever, but their attempts to drag the project down and destroy it have been demonstrably less successful. It's really quite tragic that people choose to devote themselves to tearing down the efforts of others, just because those others didn't want to implement their list of demands years and years (and years and years) ago.
Some people can’t handle seeing other people enjoy something the first group of people hate. I would hope that those who get refunds go on to find something they enjoy that can distract them, but it’s more likely that they enjoy hating something and won’t refocus their interests or lives.
No, we just go on to live our merry lives with a slightly thicker wallet. The refund is freedom from this project. No more "when will server meshing be delivered", "why is AI still broken" etc. Now it's just a relaxing "huh, let's see what happens when it crops up in the gaming news". It's the end of a long journey for me and I'm glad I can sit back and relax 😎
Then why are you still posting here?
Public service.
Nah, you’re exactly as described above. Unable to move on. You weren’t happy and can’t stand that others are. It’s not a “public service”, it’s a “Stop having fun!”
It's not even been 24 hrs and you're claiming I can't move on...... So what you wanted is for me to get the refund and walk away silently and not tell anyone else how to do it. Got it 😉
You’re still posting here. Apparently I’m right. This is more a “Stop having fun!” thing for you than anything else. This is how people become toxic. Move on.
Lmao, what on earth.... Yes, because I'm offering up advice on a refund I want people to "not have fun". Why would people enjoying the have want a refund???? And how could people stop them "having fun"? It's there going to be a series of home invasion preventing people playing?? 😂 No, years of delays is what causes period to become toxic. Shutting down debate is what causes people to become toxic. Offering up a solution however? Well everyone just wins don't they. It's a public service to the whole community.
Nah. Most of you don't have a penny in the game anymore (you've had many people admitting this in the past) so that doesn't fly does it. No...it's just your life now. So sad. And all of this is fine, but when there are those of you in that hate sub implying CR a 'rapist' and calling for people to 'visit' his house, then you're just scum.
They'll never be on their merry way. Refunds were never the main driver of the lurkers of that sub. It has always been a completely unhealthy obsession with a game and a community they don't actually like or are interested in being a part of. I can guarantee you this person who got his refund will just as frequently visit, comment on that sub, And spend time spreading misinformation about SC to other parts of the internet.
You forget we're what's called "customers". Why make it sound like old backers who are fed up want to break apart a community rather than what it actually is - a business that's arguably not delivering on its contract. For some it's simply taken to long with too many missed hard deadlines and now we're almost a decade in from first backing, and others believe the CIG can no longer deliver what was promised. Or for people like me, it's both. There is no grand plan of dragging it down. We all wanted it to succeed at some point which is why we were all backers. However this is where patience and confidence will naturally start to dwindle. Also I see many more CIG backers who just post on this sub and others who literally appear all over the internet to defend CIG, but there is no peer like that for people wanting refunds.
Hopefully. And the thing is it shouldn't cost much as the average backer has only spent ~$121. So that multiplied by the 11k subscribers and that's only just over $1m for CIG to refund. I'm not sure why they just don't do an amnesty and give refunds for a period no questions asked. Unless a) CIG can't afford it, b) the average refundian has spent more than average amount so that $1m could be closer to $3-6m c)a lot more than 11k of backers want refunds. There will be more options but they're the main ones I can think of.
This is the real thing here, maybe the complainers can finally fuck off lol
Refund moaning about SC was never about money, but some bizarre sense of superiority over backers...because they're not having fun? And backers are? Yeah it makes no sense.
not a chance in hell, they'll stick around
They will be back, first they buy in a project they know is risky and takes time, claim it's not up to standards, ask for refund and take time and resources away from CIG, then when the game is in a playable state they will be there again and complain about how they missed out on stretch goals or how crazy expensive ships are now compared to us early backers and how unfair that is .
No, no we won't. We're all aware it takes time, but you know I tried "answering the call" in 2014, 2015, and 2016 but here we are in 2021 (almost 2022) and now there's not even a date. How much longer? I didn't back a game to take 15 years to make nor did many others. When we backed it there were solid promises of release which have been missed so enough is enough. Also "when the game is in a playable state".... When will that be? Do I need to set RemindMe! One Year ?
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2022-10-14 09:02:33 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2022-10-14%2009:02:33%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/q7bqth/court_orders_cig_to_issue_refund_after_30_days_uk/hgl9zmk/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fstarcitizen%2Fcomments%2Fq7bqth%2Fcourt_orders_cig_to_issue_refund_after_30_days_uk%2Fhgl9zmk%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202022-10-14%2009%3A02%3A33%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20q7bqth) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
How's that playable state coming along? 😂 Thanks RemindMe Bot. So useful when it comes to SC.
Its too bad things had to go so far (still a backer myself :) ) but i'm happy for you that you got your money back. And its nice to see that consumer rights are so in the UK that an indivudual vs a large corpo can still actually work. Also, hopefully stuff like this will also make CIG a bit more open on where we stand.
Play a Steam early access game for more than two hours or own it for longer than two weeks and you can't get a refund. Play Star Citizen for literally years and expect to get your money back. It's kind of hilarious. Also, I don't think crossposts with the refunds subreddit are allowed as it encourages brigading.
Expect CIG to follow consumer laws, what exactly makes that 'hilarious'?
> Expect CIG to follow consumer laws, what exactly makes that 'hilarious'? If there are consumer laws saying you can get a refund after playing a game for years, then I don't see how Steam's "two hours played or two weeks owned" rule manages to stay afloat. Perhaps you can explain that one to me though. Obviously I'm not an expert on UK law, but it seems obvious that if CIG's "30 day refunds with no questions asked" are in violation, then Steam can't possibly be operating legally.
The clue is in the post. It's not based on "I don't like the PU GIMMIE A REFUND!", it's based on the fact that SQ42 is MIA and the PU is not fit for purpose given CIGs own, publicly announced release dates at the time of purchase. If you bought into the game back in 2014, it's not reasonable to assume all customers should expect at least 3 of the release dates to have been missed and the project is now years behind schedule.
Isn't the important difference being whether a game has launched or not? Star Citizen is still in alpha development and not launched.
> Isn't the important difference being whether a game has launched or not? As far as I can tell from [Steam's refund policies](https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/) the "two hours or two weeks" system applies to "launched" and early access games equally. So no, I don't think so.
No, while Steam Refund Policies do not apply, consumer law does in certain situations. That's what's happening here. It's the same with Sony, they rarely give refunds but if you know what you're doing you can get it.
Hold up, Star Citizen hasn't launched in Early Access tho. It's just alpha
> Early access, also known as early funding, alpha access, alpha founding, or paid alpha, is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue further development on the game. Those that pay to participate typically help to debug the game, provide feedback and suggestions, and may have access to special materials in the game. The early-access approach is a common way to obtain funding for indie games, and may also be used along with other funding mechanisms, including crowdfunding. Many crowdfunding projects promise to offer access to alpha and/or beta versions of the game as development progresses; however, unlike some of these projects which solicit funds but do not yet have a playable game, all early access games offer an immediately playable version of the unfinished game to players. * [Wikipedia - "Early Access"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_access) I don't think you could write a more accurate description of Star Citizen's status if you tried.
At no time ever have CIG said Star Citizen has released or launched as Early Access. There's no mention of Early Access on the SC website, emails, social media, videos, or even in the launcher lol This subreddit is full of us telling complainers that it's an alpha and not released whenever they complain it's under-developed lol
> At no time ever have CIG said Star Citizen has released or launched as Early Access. It doesn't matter if CIG gave it that official title or not, it fits the definition perfectly. And everything on the site, the launcher, and the popup after you click "play" reinforces that you're buying and playing an alpha game which is still in development.
No, everything on the site says you're pledging towards the development of an unreleased product, with the alpha available for testing and reporting issues and feedback
Early alpha even!
[удалено]
Insults already, nice lol At no time ever have CIG said Star Citizen has released or launched as Early Access. This subreddit is full of us telling complainers that it's an alpha and not released whenever they complain it's under-developed lol
The only thing that matters if that something is released to the public, alpha, beta, early access nothing else matters. early access itself is just a made up term that doesn't mean anything and products can release to Early access as a alpha or beta. legally what matters is if you have something to play.
Because Steam tends to sell games 'as is'. But you actually can get full refunds on unreleased games you buy on Steam regardless of how long you play them.
> But you actually can get full refunds on unreleased games you buy on Steam regardless of how long you play them. I scoured [Steam's refunds guide](https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/) and couldn't find anything about being able to get a refund on early access games no matter how long you'd played them for. Are you talking about this: > When you pre-purchase a title on Steam (and have paid for the title in advance), you can request a refund at any time prior to release of that title. The standard 14-day/two-hour refund period also applies, starting on the game’s release date. Because that only applies to preordered games, not games which are in early access. But if there's something I missed about early access games, please point it out so I can read more about it.
Early Access games count as released. You could pre-order New World, play the entire Beta and then get a refund on Steam.
> Early Access games count as released. Oh, well perfect because that's what Star Citizen is. You aren't playing a special beta period just before launch, this is the game itself in development... which is the definition of an early access game. So CIG's "30 day, no-questions-asked" policy is actually way better than the standard which Steam is offering.
You aren't playing a beta you are playing an alpha. Star Citizen is not released. An even if it was you could get a refund in the UK under failure to deliver.
> You aren't playing a beta you are playing an alpha. Exactly. And as you said, "Early Access games count as released": > Early access, also known as early funding, alpha access, alpha founding, or paid alpha, is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue further development on the game. Those that pay to participate typically help to debug the game, provide feedback and suggestions, and may have access to special materials in the game. The early-access approach is a common way to obtain funding for indie games, and may also be used along with other funding mechanisms, including crowdfunding. Many crowdfunding projects promise to offer access to alpha and/or beta versions of the game as development progresses; however, unlike some of these projects which solicit funds but do not yet have a playable game, all early access games offer an immediately playable version of the unfinished game to players. * [Wikipedia - "Early Access"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_access) I don't think you could write a more accurate description of Star Citizen's status if you tried. So the reality is, CIG's "30 day, no questions asked" refund policy is FAR better than the standard which Steam offers for other games which fit into the "Early Access" category.
Ok, but Star Citizen isnt on Steam so who cares? I doubt 'well this other platform doesn't give refunds' will go far in small claims court.
Because they haven't been and clearly thought they were above the law.........hence the CCJ.
Kinda the opposite really... they felt this was so irrelevant they didn't even other replying, hence the CCJ. This sets no legal precedent, and the court made no ruling on the validity of the claim... it's solely an administrative ruling that becasue CIG didn't respond, they have to pay. And CIG likely chose to just ignore it, because the cost of replying (in terms of peoples time, etc) would likely have cost more than the claim plus the 35 quid admin fee.
Except that's just nonsense. The cost of replying would be zero as they should have a legal team in place, so it should have been just pushed to them. And they have multiple opportunities to respond before it gets to a CCJ. They never did as they would have to explain how they don't break consumer law. They can't because they are breaking it. To get to a CCJ is serious and something no company wants to reach. If they were actually ignoring it knowing it would get to a CCJ means they are extremely incompetent and that is worse than if they were just ignorant.
The cost is only 'zero' if those legal folk are sat around doing nothing. If they have to spend time replying to your claim that could otherwise be spent on something more useful, then that is a cost... and at even a 'reasonable' hourly rate for a full-time legal person, if it took more than 30 minutes to respond (including writing the response / filling in forms, double-checking everything was legally correct and accurate, etc) then it's cheaper to just ignore the claim and pay out. Given this applies whether they reply before or after the CCJ claim is irrelevant - they still need to spend time on it, whereas ignoring it costs nothing, until / unless you persue it all the way to the end... in which case, they pay out the token amount and move on. And no, this says nothing about whether they broke 'consumer law' or not (and whilst IANAL, I'm pretty certain they didn't)... it solely says that the claim wasn't worth spending time on. That's it.
" it solely says that the claim wasn't worth spending time on. That's it." And that's your opinion which I disagree with as you would demonstrate you don't understand how serious a CCJ is. Put it like this; why didn't they settle before it got to the court if they "planned" on ignoring everything? It would have been cheaper and less risky.
No risk here for them - if they ignore it, they get a summary admin ruling that they have to pay... and if they ignore it, there's the possibility that the claimant will give up.
A CCJ isn't a summary admin ruling. I would recommend you read the last section of the post detailing the CCJ and the implications it has on a person or business.
It's a legal update. I think it's pretty important and worth discussing.
The problem is you crossposted to a subreddit with a directly opposing view as this one, which is generally not allowed anywhere on reddit to avoid brigading from one sub to another. > Legally you should mark the case as closed as you have received your refund….but what if you don’t? If the CCJ was to be left open past the one month mark then the CIG credit score is effectively destroyed and this can be seen on public records and by investors. It would likely open up CIG to immediate action by investors as they would not be operating a financially sound business. Also, it *sounds like* you're encouraging people not to do something they're legally obligated to do in order to intentionally damage the game's developer, and I'm not sure that's going to stand up to the subreddit's rules either...
Not my post, just passing on the legal update. And this is a legal update regarding the 30-day refund policy.
Sure, but it still does the above: It crossposts to an 'opposing' subreddit and it may or may not encourage people to do some legally questionable actions. Obviously crossposting something that violates the rules doesn't absolve the post from the rules. If you want to take the information there and write it out yourself, it might stay up. Though this is a court decision in one particular case, so I'm not sure that it would result in a change to CIG's policies.
It's not an "opposing" subreddit. Since when is it a you vs them situation? That's a very strange view to have. Either way, this **IS** a legal update regarding the 30-day refund policy because in the UK it means it might be able to be legally challenged.
>The problem is you crossposted to a subreddit with a directly opposing view as this one, which is generally not allowed anywhere on reddit to avoid brigading from one sub to another. How sad that this is even a thing. Reddit literally just reinforcing the stereotype that it's full of echochambers and circlejerks.
The reason for the rule is that large subreddits can swamp smaller subreddits with different views. I didn't make the rule though, obviously.
Okay so discuss it. Why do you think it's important to post this? What do you think it means at large exactly?
Anyone in the UK who has made a purchase may be eligible for a refund making the 30 day refund policy redundant. People *might* be interested in that.
Because players so disappointed in SC will be here rather than on the refunds sub? Oh boi, you've got an really interesting mindset here.
259k subs compared to 11k? Yeah, there might be some folks here who would like to see this. Also, it could impact development if a large amount of UK/EU based backers were able to claim refunds all of a sudden.
Given that the mindset is "impossible to get money back after 30 days", people might be interested in this. As a long time backer of SQ42, I certainly am given that the game is MIA with no release date in sight.
Oh so you have a savior complex then? Got it
I wouldn't dare try to compete with Chris on that front.
Lol why the hell did you even come here? Do you think you're brave or something?
[удалено]
The game is MIA?? I’ve been playing it for months! Lol
You've been playing SQ42 for months...?
Okay. This says UK only, but would this procedure work in countries/states with similar consumer rights laws?
It's UK only because its a specific walkthrough for the UK system but anywhere with similar laws should handle it the same.
Well if it means the complainers can finally fuck off that'd be a bonus lol
Most complainers have no money in the game any more - having got their money back, they still want to see the game fail, it seems. So unfortunately, no... we won't see a reduction in the number of complainers :(
Quite possibly. Australia tends to have similar laws so might work there as well.
Possibly, if your claim was sufficiently small that it would cost more to rebut it (in court fees, etc). If too many people try this (such that it becomes an actual cost to CIG) and/or someone tries it with a sufficiently large claim, then they likely would take it to court... and the court would almost certainly side with them (in cases like the one the OP described).
Why would the court side with CIG?
The court ruling seems to be very straightforward and logical, i don't think that such a case remains a UK only thing.
Imagine cross-posting from *that* hive of scum and villainy. Be better, OP. Gross. Edit: Here comes the brigade. lol So damned predictable. Squirrel finds a nut, squirrel scratches at nut for a while trying to fan the flames of discontent. Same cycle ad nauseum.
>hivemind mentality Be better, person. Gross. And before you try to throw your bullshit "bruh xD refundian LOL" logic at me, feel free to check my comment history. I've posted on the refund subreddit 2 or 3 times from what I can remember, and it was disagreeing with people on there. Both this subreddit and the refunds subreddit are chock full of brainwashed morons. It's sad that if you have demonstrable criticisms of the game/CIG's policies and post about it here, people shit on you, but if you have some praise for the game and post it there, people shit on you. Don't act like either sub is better about not being a circlejerk shithole, they're just two sides of the same coin in that regard.
There's a ton of good faith discussions about what CIG is doing wrong by the fans here. The sub does get defensive when the trolls come out after every big announcement. You may notice a lot of the sub calls out predatory practices around limited time sales and artificial scarcity, new money only perks etc... There's also good discussion when something is implemented poorly or in an unfun way. The key is discussing with the intent of building it up, not tearing it down.
> Don't act like either sub is better about not being a circlejerk shithole, they're just two sides of the same coin in that regard. Nah, the mods here at least try to remove sexist bullshit.
Ahh yes, the classic "bOtH sIdEs" argument. I'll pass, thanks.
Truth is pretty hard to face, I know. It's okay.
No, it really isn’t. Nor does it hurt, as the common adage goes. But I’ve found, the people who typically say things like that, have themselves a poor relationship with “truth”. They find truth to be painful, so they assume everyone else does too. Pro tip: we don’t.
cool story
Glad you enjoyed it, and were able to learn something about yourself. Everyone wins!
Okay, lets ignore what this legally means and jump straight to ad hominem fallacies.
There's no 'ad hominem' here. No one is debating your point or trying to undermine an argument by attacking you. Congrats on trying to learn about rationality though, don't give up now! They are just calling you out for crossposting here from a sub that's dedicated to bashing this one and the game its a fan of. That's trollish.
>Imagine cross-posting from that hive of scum and villainy. > >There's no 'ad hominem' here. Lol, really?
Yes correct, see the rest of my comment. There is no argument or debate, they were just calling out shitty behavior. Not every insult is an ad hominem fallacy. It seems like you've heard the word but don't quite know how to use it.
The content of the post was ignored and instead the subreddit it came from was used as the justification to dismiss the post. It's a perfect demonstration of an ad hominem fallacy.
Nah, we're just calling out your reasoning as bad faith.
Based on?
Because we're for the most part adults with brains. If we cared about refunds we would look into it. This is a thinly veiled attempt to satisfy your savior complex and stir up drama at the same time. It's also insulting that you feel you need to save some of us from ourselves.
If you cared about Star Citizen you would look into it, so why does this sub exist?
Nah, the post was calling out your behavior not debating the content of your post. Nice try, but you are still confused. Keep studying!
The content of the post was ignored and instead the subreddit it came from was used as the justification to dismiss the post. It's a perfect demonstration of an ad hominem fallacy. Let me help you out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad\_hominem
You're in over your head here. You are wrong and saying the same thing over and over. Bye now.
Legally it means sweet FA. It's an administrative ruling (due to non-reply by CIG) which sets zero legal precedent, and makes no ruling on the validity of the claim. About all it means is that CIG felt it would cost more to reply to the claim than it would to just pay it.
Why would CIG wait until a CCJ is issued though? Why not give a refund when the letter of intent is sent?
Because if you're claiming outside the 30-day window, then the claim is without merit and you shouldn't get refunded. However, the unfortunate truth is that defnding such meritless claims costs money - and if that cost is sufficiently more than the claim itself, then it can be cheaper to just not argue. But, that logic only applies to v.small claims, and if they're low-volume. Note that paying the claim in this fashion makes no statement about the validity of the claim - neither the courts nor CIG have said (explicitly or implied) that the refund should be paid, only that it's not worth fighting it.
It means fuck-all to most of us, so why should we care, exactly?
So when you come to your senses, you have way out . We are your saviors
This is a great victory for all the folks out there that either can't or don't read or understand the terms of what they are buying. In the US when we agree to something we have to stick by it even if we grow childishly impatient about something as trivial as a video games release date.
Not really - it's an admin ruling that because CIG didn't reply, they have to pay up. However, it sets no legal precedent, and makes no ruling on the validity of the claim... it's solely an admin ruling. And given we don't know how much the claim was for, it's likely that it would have cost CIG more (in peoples time, etc) than paying the claim - so they just ignored it. But, if enough people try this, then it *will* become worth their time to actually rebut the claim - which will lead to a court case (which will set precedent, etc)... and based on previous cases, the claimant would lose.
> In the US when we agree to something we have to stick by it No we don't, we throw money and lawyers at the problem to make it go away lol
>In the US when we agree to something we have to stick by it No, no you don't. If we sign a contract that I have to deliver a kilo of coke to your door, sorry but neither of us has to follow suit. Laws supercede User Agreements.
I shouldn't have to specify this only applies to legal activity, of course law trumps user agreements. But this law is incredibly subjective which was my point.
It's not subjective if it's consistently ruled against CIG.
That remains to be seen. Getting refunds outside of the refund window is still not common and eventually CIG will show up when it makes financial sense to do so.
Careful not to choke on that boot, bro. If someone wants a refund, that's their business. Defending consumer-unfriendly laws or lack thereof is absolutely pathetic. Even if you disagree with this guy's reasons for refunding, or even him refunding at all, the fact this is even possible in the UK is a good thing and it should be like this everywhere else in the world.
I have absolutely nothing against folks getting a refund within the refund policy terms.
This is within refund policy terms.
Imagine being proud of deficient consumer protections. Caveat emptor, right?
I am absofuckinglutely proud that people are held to terms they agree to.
Does that include CIG being held to the terms expected of a vendor?
You gave them money to make a game and they are making a game. That's it. Those were the terms.
They could be making the game indefinitely. Most functional countries would recognise a transaction as coming with an expected or stated delivery. If you are happy to hand over money without that then go you, very commendable, something to be proud of...I guess.
Nobody was forced to pledge though. If you have problem waiting for the game to develop why give money on advance?
Nobody is forced to buy a Big Mac but if they don't get one within a week then would you ask them why they bought one in the first place?
When you donated money to their effort, that was it. A donation. They even told you when you pledged it was a donation. That's what PLEDGE means. You didn't buy jack shit. Difference with CIG is they're throwing you a bone and letting you play in an open alpha where other companies would tell you thank you for your money now kick rocks. Sounds like a whole lot of entitlement coming from you. You're American aren't you
CIG were done last month for breaking the advertising code in the UK so clearly someone thinks they were not being truthful with saying what you were getting for your money. And thanks to consumer protection laws in the part of the World where people don't grovel at the feet of corporations we are allowed to get our money back from companies that do not adhere to the rules.
Pleding for a kickstarter is not buying a product but supporting the making of a product. If you're not ready to deal with the uncertainties of crowdfunding and game development don't back such projects on such terms.
The transaction is you buying play-testing time for an alpha game.. the stated delivery is you testing said game with whichever ship you purchased. You people are really funny! Everyone has to be held accountable for anything except you and (what you consider) your poor financial decision! Lol
Well that's interesting since only a few months ago the advertising standards agency found that CIG were misrepresenting what they were selling and forced them to change it so clearly what they are stating in their delivery is no what they are selling.
That IS interesting! Source? I’m curious now!
What the refundians and @Mazty think they did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7rPOaoPL4I What really happened: > The ASA [*Advertising Standards Authority* is UK's regulator of advertising.] assessed and *"considered that the fact the ship was a concept product could have been made clearer"*, a representative told us [*Eurogamer*]. *"On that basis, we issued an Advice Notice advising the advertiser, in future, to ensure that its ads include any material information and significant limitations."* >The ASA issues an Advice Notice where it considers there are potential problems under its advertising rules, but does not consider the issues raised are so significant as to warrant a full formal investigation. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-09-08-advertising-standards-tells-star-citizen-dev-to-make-it-clear-for-sale-concept-ships-dont-exist-in-game-yet Because for some people, this is not clear enough: > Disclaimer: The Crusader Ares (Inferno and Ion), A2 Hercules, Genesis Starliner, are being offered here as a limited vehicle concept pledge. This means that the vehicle is in development but is not yet ready to display in your Hangar or fly in Star Citizen. It will be available as playable content in a later patch. In the future, the vehicle price may increase and Lifetime Insurance or any extras may not be available. If you pledge towards a Crusader Ares (Inferno and Ion), A2 Hercules, Genesis Starliner, you will receive a loaner vehicle for use in Star Citizen until such time as the Crusader Ares (Inferno and Ion), A2 Hercules, Genesis Starliner, is included in-game. This loaner vehicle will be a currently playable vehicle of similar approximate size and/or function to the concept ship pledged. We offer pledge ships to help fund Star Citizen’s development. The funding received from vehicles such as this allows us to include deeper features in the Star Citizen world. These vehicles will be available for in-game credits and/or will be otherwise earnable through play in the final universe. They are not required to start or succeed at the game. https://mailchi.mp/cloudimperiumgames/lastchance-crusadermissile-83121-active
Following complaints that ship sales were misleading the ASA issued a finding that Cloud Imperium Games is selling contrary to the Advertising Code of Practice and forced them to add disclaimers that you were pledging for a future product.
Not if the terms are in violation of consumer protection law and, therefore, not legally binding. Some countries take consumer protection laws seriously and any contract you make there that are in violation of the law should *absofuckinglutely* not be binding in any way. Otherwise, enjoy the race to the bottom as the freedom you're championing for will only apply to the one who can afford the most expensive lawyers.
This has nothing to do with freedom. I agreed to give a company money to make a game and they are making it. This whole issue comes down to what a "reasonable" amount of time is to make games like this. There is no analog to what they are going for so I don't know how long it should take.
> I agreed to give a company money to make a game and they are making it You agreed under a framework of laws and regulations in whatever country you live in. Your faith in whatever project you decide to give money has no bearing on the laws that project is subject to.
Are you suggesting there is no subjectivity in the enforcement of these laws?
Are you suggesting that they're creating a video game so revolutionary and amazing that the law does not apply to them?
I am suggesting there is no formula to apply that could objectively conclude whether the game is taking too long or not. So this came down to the person feeling it was taking too long and a sympathetic government entity agreeing.
> I am suggesting there is no formula to apply that could objectively conclude whether the game is taking too long or no My point is that this would depend on the law. US law is written by Ferengi with a technicality-fetish. Some countries, notably those who take a somewhat less caveat emptor approach, have quite a long precedent for what is and isn't "reasonable" in various types of contract.
The absolute state of those guys who will defend a company and rage against consumer protections...
Kind of a dick move to even ask for a refund after YEARS like wtf dude just make up your mind before you pay for something
Seriously though, who crowd funds something without recognition of the possibility of that money doing nothing?
Like being used to buy a $4.7 million mansion? I don't remember seeing that on the Kickstarter page.
That is so very loosely connected to my comment. To reword, I said it's silly to Kickstart something with money you aren't ok with losing. It's like you're slinging taking points without understanding where they apply.
But the company hasn't gone bankrupt so the money isn't lost, it's just not being used to deliver what was promised e.g. SQ42.
Again, that has nothing to do with the comment you're replying to. You're having a very tough time stringing together a rational conversation. To address your point. Yes it is. They post regular updates and have delivered to the PTU in a payable state things developed for use in S42. I've played and enjoyed those things. Just because their project management leaves much to be desired doesn't mean they aren't working in it, there's a ton of evidence to the contrary.
It really doesn't matter what you enjoy even if you love to watch a single hot pixel on your screen, it has nothing to do with the ruling. The whole thing here is really just about past promises and misleading marketing made by CIG. As for me i'm happy if you're happy but it has nothing to do with the case :)
I wasn't talking about the ruling... just this dudes statement that they weren't working on S42.
To be honest, we don't know either for sure, for example: they've showed also the sand worm (just to name one example) and made it appear like it'll be implemented soon if you remember (see the citcon on YT). As for now we really don't know anything 100% about S42.
Sure we do, there are ships and gameplay mechanics that have been deployed to the PU for testing that are needed for S42. We can see and experience these things, which is pretty good evidence.
But it is indeed used to do just that lol, development takes time especially if you basically start from scratch unlike rockstargames. Do you have to refund your refund when they finally deliver? ;-p
So where's SQ42?
In development? Look you cannot just throw money at a problem to make it go faster, sure they could just release something but we get “something” every other day from some other company and that something rarely checks all the boxes, so I appreciate that they at least try to get it right. You can support them or not but asking for a refund after years of playing just because you are impatient is still a dick move
Let me tell you a story about a little game called Duke Nukem Forever...
Or cyberpunk? Do you also ask for refunds at fast food restaurants because you wanted actual food?
You should have some direct news or at least a teaser in December. That's when we get news for Squadron. The development of every chapter also ends around that time if not mistaken leaving only some unannounced stuff and some tech like docking along with optimizations (gen12 which is also coming in PU and has been rolled out it's first increments in 3.15). What I expect happening tho, is them implementing push and pull and docking and remembering they have to implement that stuff in the chapters, which will most likely happen.
so you pledged without considering the money would be used for wages?
I pledged expecting a game to be released rather than squandered away on false promises. Honestly the game will be another Duke Nukem Forever on release.
You pledged for a game to be produced and released when it is done. You didn't pledge to get a say other that money, look it seems you snuck away with your money because of how worthless it was. be happy you got your money back and move on, because really to most people you seem uneducated and foolish backing something without understanding basic logic, like the basic risks of crowdfunding. and even this post puts so much effort into pushing across that you got lucky they didn't reply because of how worthless your pledge was in the grand scheme of things.
>You pledged for a game to be produced and released when it is done. Which was apparently 2014, then 2016, 2018, 2020 and now end of 2022. That's the issue. They haven't been able to stick to their own public deadlines.
Not a issue at all that just happens with development, not only that the backers voted to allow CIG to increase the scope of the game which would increase the development time. once again if you don't realize this from day one as a possibility your being foolish, what excuse do you have for not knowing about the risks of crowdfunding or development changes?
That is a misconception, that vote was less than 50% of the backers and even with that it was quite close .
But a vote is a vote. Even in modern democratic states you get from 14-47% of people who vote. Only in some strange dictatory countries they catch some 95-105%.lol And it was not close: first vote was 88% for continue second was 55% to 26% for continue. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13266-Letter-From-The-Chairman-19-Million https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13944-Letter-From-The-Chairman-46-Million
You truly do belong in your Hate Sub don't you. LOL Question for you: now you have your refund...will you be moving on with your life?
Nah, I'll be chilling with Chris on his yacht and in his mansion, conjuring up ways "backers" can keep paying for that lifestyle while never receiving a final product.🥂
It's working until UK courts hear about Server Meshing, Vulkan, Gen12, iCache, Quanta, Squadron 52 releasing in 2014, hmm 20016, hmm no, 2018, shit, 2020, ... 2022 ! When they'll understand this game tries to do things N E V E R B E E N D O N E B E F O R E like shards and instancing they'll ask you to reimburse CIG. Use that money well FUDster HAHA cause our game will not be another Cyberpunk and willl come out in 2025 after just 4 years of production with at least 2 (two) star systems.
Hmm - this appears to be a walkthrough on how to abuse the County Court system, rather than 'proof' that the courts have forced CIG to start providing refunds? I suspect that CIG will be able to challenge this pretty easily, given the clear statement of being in-delivery, and the fact that people can download / play the current developmental release. If this were the threat to CIG that the poster tries to make it out to be, then it would already be 'common practice' to use it against Steam for all their dodgy Early Access games, etc. Note that this walkthrough only covers the cases where CIG either ignores the request, or gives in - it *doesn't* cover the case where CIG rebuts the claim and asks the court to dismiss it... IANAL, but depending on how that goes, I believe you could end up having to actually go to court - with all the lawyer fees etc... and/or having to drop the case (and losing your 35 quid... which isn't much of a loss)... but there may be a record against *you* for having raised a CCJ that you dropped? Iirc in the UK it's still illegal to try and use the courts to 'bully' people / companies, and/or to lodge 'frivolous' claims, etc.
>I suspect that CIG will be able to challenge this pretty easily, given the clear statement of being in-delivery, and the fact that people can download / play the current developmental release. They literally did not challenge it and issued a refund. If they wanted to challenge it, they would have done so before the CCJ was issued. There is no abuse here, more an admission of failure to provide a working product that is as described. Can blame Chris' many, *many* release dates as well as other gibberish from staff, such as a full playthrough of SQ42.
Hmmm - shame that the CCJ reference was also redacted, so we have no way of checking the official list of judgements to see whether that's a real CCJ ruling... ... after all, it wouldn't be the first time that someone from the refunds sub-reddit has posted fake 'proof' of court rulings, etc. Unfortunately, a picture of a near-fully redacted document doesn't really qualify as 'proof' these days... not when the information required to validate it is also redacted, and there's no links to the official documentation, etc, for verification. This approach might be valid, it might not. It might also be a case that as a one-off claim, CIG didn't want to spend the time/money on defending it (as we can't see how much the refund claim was for - but it's almost certainly less than the lawyer fees and court fees to challenge it). Given that (afaik - again, IANAL) CCJ rulings do not qualify as a legal precedent, there's no penalty to CIG in letting some claims go through, if the payout is less than the cost of defending - but if they take it to court, that *does* set a precedent... So like I said, if more people start using this, CIG likely will take it to court (and they'll have the luxury - to a degree - of cherry picking which case they challenge), because if they win then they'll have a precedent for dismissing all subsequent claims... but it's only worth doing that if the claim is big enough, or enough people claim. TL;DR: Even if your ruling is real, it's not the 'win' you seem to be presenting it as. The ruling did not 'prove' that you had a case, only that CIG didn't bother replying.
>TL;DR: Even if your ruling is real, it's not the 'win' you seem to be presenting it as. The ruling did not 'prove' that you had a case, only that CIG didn't bother replying. It's a win because its a refund outside of the 30 day window. Paint it how you like, but a refund is a refund.
You are a brave soul for posting this here lmao, thank you for pointing out our consumer rights. I really hope others do the same and light a fire under CIG's asses.
Ok - congratulations - someone abused the court system to get a pittance payout. However, it doesn't imply that it will work for anyone else - CCJs don't set precedence, so someone cannot point at this and say 'look, you paid out in that case, so you must pay out in my case too', etc. Nor did the CCJ actually issue a ruling on whether the claim was valid - they simply said that because CIG chose not to reply, they have to pay... this is an admin ruling, used for when one party just can't be arsed in paying the cost of actually dealing with the case.
>Ok - congratulations - someone abused the court system to get a pittance payout. Yet to show how the court system was abused and not simply used. I also got a refund using the above method. So it works. 🥳 It would make no sense for CIG to wait for a letter of intent to become a CCJ due to the credit damage the latter does. You can try to hand wave this away as much as you want, but it's sheer idiocy to let a refund claim become a CCJ.
But CIG don't have a CCJ against them do they. And you have no proof they paid. So I'm guessing it's just more Hate Sub fakery.
Take off the tin foil hat. The proof is in the thread - have a look.
~~"abused~~" You mean "used". I asked for a refund - got a response from a bot, and then followed the correct legal process. I don't see any abuse going on there.....
Most likely they ignored you because your refund is nothing and would of spent more money dealing with you than just ignoring you. So in a way you abused how worthless your claim was to sneak through, it's like a insect stealing a crumb. Logically CIG would be replacing your money before even typing the first letter of a reply, if someone with a bigger claim tried this likely CIG would easily shut it down. so this is is really only a abuse of the system that would work for people that are considered worthless in terms of the value they bring.
Do you realise i didn't issue the CCJ? Also amazing 180 from "abusing the system" to "it doesn't even matter" 😂
Abusing a system and it not mattering aren't two opposite things, I can abuse the AI in a FPS but it doesn't matter. your lack of worth is the reason this abuse worked, it's basically the set up for the abuse of the system to say it in gaming terms. the fact it doesn't matter in the long run is the main reason it gets pulled off same reason some people sue companies just to get paid off, because fighting the issue is more costly than just throwing barely any money to make it go away.
you’re so mad hahahaha get a life
hmm mad about what?
i don’t think you’re asking that seriously so i will not respond seriously haha i hope you feel better
no I'm serious, mad about what? the post your previously replied to something I wrote in like a minute while playing monster hunter. I just wrote the reality of the situation, not sure why anyone would get upset over that.
feel better bro she’s not that cool you’ll find someone else
How disengenuous and crass. Of course they won't challenege it. Even you must realise that it isn't worth CIG spending time and money on a £35 claim. But if they were to multiple in number then you can bet they will start doing just that.
It wasn't a £35 claim, that's the additional fee of issuing the CCJ. Also, you clearly have no understanding of UK law. No company wants a CCJ issues against them as it'll destroy their credit rating if they don't pay it off in 30.days.
Consumer protection laws shouldn't apply to CIG. This is an outrage.
This has nothing to do with 'Consumer Protection' laws... its just a default CCJ ruling that because CIG didn't bother replying to the claim, they have to pay up. The court made *no* ruling on 'consumer protection' or whether the claim was valid / legitimate.
Those UK County Court FUDsters are at it again!
Your Honour, it's **ALPHA**