|
Yes, but what if instead of asking for refund I give more money?
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, however their revision will not hold because it removes basic consumer rights: That's not how it works with software license agreements. Not even a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Yes, but what if instead of asking for refund I give more money? kill self
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Onmi posted:By the way the latest insanity on other places is people claiming the Escapist should have posted the emails with the names blanked out (For the emails sent from Sandi that were abusive.) If the email contains something that is illegal (we aren't hiring no black people here) I'm fairly certain they would be protected as a whistleblower and CIG couldn't do poo poo to retaliate. Though they'd probably end up without work for being a troublemaker regardless. My dad has had multiple occasions where he was clearly let go because of his age (including one place where quite literally if age >= 45 then fire) could have had a slam dunk age discrimination case but he always said if he did that he'd never work again even if he won. Oscar Wilde Bunch fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Oct 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
You can get out of contracts over arbitrary changes (this is a good way to escape 2 year phone contracts) but if you leave the contract for whatever reason then your license is revoked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Iron Tusk posted:If the email contains something that is illegal (we aren't hiring no black people here) I'm fairly certain they would be protected as a whistleblower and CIG couldn't do poo poo to retaliate. They'd be dead to the industry though. Nobody is going to hire a whistleblower.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Octopode posted:My question is how do EU countries handles digital licenses, though? What's the standard for when the product is delivered for a license? Because for the digital products CIG is offering (basically everything but merch, now), you're not actually buying the game as a product--you're buying a license to a digital service which will eventually offer access to the game/ships. The license is delivered immediately (even if it's functionally useless), which I believe is where CIG's policy of refunds available up to 14 days after purchase, no questions asked, comes from. Delivery is when the service starts, so it's release date and your ability to get a refund ends 14 days from then and then only assuming they did everything 100% correctly. They maybe get to keep the money from subscribers (though they'd really shouldn't have given hangar fair as in the event of a rejection of the goods that cost should be deducted and refunded, but I dunno that's not entirely clear). Everything else they have to refund (physical goods already accepted excluded).
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:You can get out of contracts over arbitrary changes (this is a good way to escape 2 year phone contracts) but if you leave the contract for whatever reason then your license is revoked. I'm pretty sure that is exactly what CIG is trying to pull here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Yes, but what if instead of asking for refund I give more money? Good idea. Let's help Chris make Star Citizen real 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
G0RF posted:CIG is an equal opportunity workplace, OhDearGodNo. They have Justin from "Reverse the Verse" AND Colt LeGrande (Sports Reporter) from the Empire Report. Hence they are diversified. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:They'd be dead to the industry though. Nobody is going to hire a whistleblower. Ya it's a poo poo position to be in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:21
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:Let's say iTunes has a ToS dated June 2012 that says if an album (i.e. digital license) is not released 12 months after the promised delivery date, I can get a refund. The problem is you're missing the part that started this whole discussion where I stated that what I'm saying is applicable only after you accept the new TOS. Once you do that, it's applicable to you going forward. They cannot retroactively change your agreement without your consent, but if you agree to have it modified, it's modified. You're right, they can't legally force you to agree to a change--but you're wrong in that they can't force you to accept a new license to keep using your license because, in the US at least, they have the same right to terminate services with you as they have to terminate services with them. Now, if they terminate services with you and you never accepted the new license agreement--you're still legally entitled to that refund after 12 months, but you throw that out the window if you accept a modification to the agreement (assuming the original TOS included a modification agreement, which it did in this case). You're arguing a hypothetical now where you never agree to a modified agreement--but that's not where the discussion started, when you claimed the old agreement was still in effect even after you had agreed to a new one.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
AP posted:Delivery is when the service starts, so it's release date and your ability to get a refund ends 14 days from then and then only assuming they did everything 100% correctly. They maybe get to keep the money from subscribers (though they'd really shouldn't have given hangar fair as in the event of a rejection of the goods that cost should be deducted and refunded, but I dunno that's not entirely clear). Everything else they have to refund (physical goods already accepted excluded). Where subscriber money goes is one of those things that I've always been curious about. While I've never seen the result of someone raking the forums to get an exact number of subscribers I would have to think that they're bringing in a pretty substantial amount of money every month.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
What ongoing service does CIG provide for which you would need to agree to a new TOS? If you payed for something in 2013 and they updated their TOS in 2015 but you've never thought about SC since, why should you care about the new TOS?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Beer and Radio Dude: Let's get some Sandi talk in this show before it's over! You're glossing over the best stuff! (Peter Gabriel, when you gonna call in?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:28
|
|
AP posted:Delivery is when the service starts, so it's release date and your ability to get a refund ends 14 days from then and then only assuming they did everything 100% correctly. They maybe get to keep the money from subscribers (though they'd really shouldn't have given hangar fair as in the event of a rejection of the goods that cost should be deducted and refunded, but I dunno that's not entirely clear). Everything else they have to refund (physical goods already accepted excluded). Does the service have to include all potential elements to begin the delivery date counter? The CIG terms include any of the related modules (So Hangar and the like) as part of the same service license as SQ42 and the PU. So if I license you access to a service, give you access to elements of that service, but not all, what happens? Pro-rated refunds for the portion you were able to access?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:Where subscriber money goes is one of those things that I've always been curious about. lol what they have subscriptions for this non-game? what in the christ? What exactly are they subscribing for? is SC meant to be a MMO like EVE or was it meant to be like Elite Dangerous with an online component for pvp matches?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Octopode posted:The problem is you're missing the part that started this whole discussion where I stated that what I'm saying is applicable only after you accept the new TOS. Once you do that, it's applicable to you going forward. They cannot retroactively change your agreement without your consent, but if you agree to have it modified, it's modified. Here's where CIG failed: - They never sent a notification of new ToS to current license holders - They never specified a new delivery date (as required by the FTC in regards to the 30-day rule) But the most important part: - When you change the ToS, you are obligated to not only provide a clear opt-out, but you are allowed to have the license cancelled and refunds applied. There's a reason I'm talking about people who have bought things before February 1st. As such, CIG is required to present a new delivery date, and would need to give each consumer the option to cancel their order, and also notify all users that not only did the ToS change, but to outline what parts were changed. Also, as I stated before, the waiver of civil action in the ToS is unenforceable almost anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:31
|
|
Roflan posted:What ongoing service does CIG provide for which you would need to agree to a new TOS? If you payed for something in 2013 and they updated their TOS in 2015 but you've never thought about SC since, why should you care about the new TOS? Access to all the various modules (and potentially the website and the like as well) are covered under the same service license and terms, so if you've logged into them, since then, you've probably agreed to the new terms.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Octopode posted:The problem is you're missing the part that started this whole discussion where I stated that what I'm saying is applicable only after you accept the new TOS. Once you do that, it's applicable to you going forward. They cannot retroactively change your agreement without your consent, but if you agree to have it modified, it's modified. You have to explicitly agree to have any TOS modified. Visiting the website after the fact doesn't imply consent, nor does even purchasing a product (purchasing agreements are different). In fact, if you want to get super legalistic (which you are sort of being except that every one of your suppositions is incorrect), a signature is required to validate a TOS. Clicking "I Agree" from your IP address doesn't mean anything. It's why most actually legally binding contracts that are digital require an e-signature service. Hypothetically, if you had a TOS tied to a product or good then you purchased it, that's one thing. The "loophole" as it were is the merchant's agreement, which is something little bit different, that enters you into a contract when you pay for a good or service. HOWEVER, unless it is delivered PRECISELY as prescribed by the merchant (in this case, CIG promising a bunch of poo poo that hasn't happened), you can challenge this agreement, be refunded, etc. Why do you think CIG is offering refunds for people asking now? Not only is it easier than them fighting it, but if someone wanted to push the issue, CIG wouldn't have a leg to stand on, even if some magical TOS was in effect that protected them. Someone with proper resources and motivation, could, in theory, sue to have their funds returned, or perform a class action on the behalf of interested parties, for anyone that say, backed SC in anticipation of the NOV 2014 promised deadline. Since that deadline wasn't met, they are entitled to a refund as services were not delivered as advertised. But your entire understanding of how these agreements work is absolutely and definitively incorrect. Kimsemus fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Oct 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
I'm going to keep feeding that goose gold until it lays golden eggs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
That's it I'm gonna donate infinity money, I played privateer 1 I highly doubt there are hundreds or more boring space sims on the market. Seriously these games loving suck, you have to has rear end burgers to enjoy them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
http://www.beyondthehorizonradio.com/ We're bitching about SC. Musical interlude included 3's The Man Who Sold the 'Verse and now Cult of Personality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:The best reference I can use is Elite Dangerous. They aren't exactly making mad sales numbers since release going by this: http://steamcharts.com/app/359320 quote:Sept 8th: It's estimated budget was £8 million pounds, but it seems to have had expanded somewhat. The IP rights buyout was £5 million - the company had to sell off 5% of it's total shares to get there. Kickstarting was a way to generate some cashflow and promote the game plus get early backers into it to stress test and get some QA done. While the payoff has been slow, they don't count their chickens and only really announce features they can deliver on and give themselves time to refine existing ones. Compare that to Star Citizen's ever growing shopping list of impulsive features that were likely shouted out at random at a dev meeting as they assumed they'd be able to easily tick it off with a few extra thousand bucks. One can only hope the PR disaster forces Roberts to rethink how his company is run and drastically restructures development to streamline what sounds like a very complicated and messy pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:http://www.beyondthehorizonradio.com/ Oh good, Blue's still alive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:40
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:Here's where CIG failed: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14473-RSI-Pledge-Store-Updat Which clearly indicates everyone will be required to accept a new ToS. OhDearGodNo posted:But the most important part: The original ToS and the new one both included clear opt-out terms already when you agreed to them, and by doing so, you would have retained your original refund ability. The requirement to outline what parts is changed is fulfilled by presenting them to you when you agree to the new terms, which they did.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:Yeah, I don't even see how they can generate even more sales, if they ever release an actual game. I mean whoever is already interested in buying the game would have likely already bought it during the crowdfunding phase. The sales after a release would be minuscule compared to the profits generated through crowdfunding. It is a very niche genre after all. Cosmetic sales for custom paint jobs, decals, lighting, etc., etc. An example from Planetside 2: Stock Sunderer:     Pimped-out Whip:     Custom paint job, decal, rims, grill, and hood ornament. Odds are it also has undercarriage lighting and a custom horn, all of which cost anywhere from $5 - $10 a pop, making that single van represent $35 to $70 in sales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:I'm going to keep feeding that goose gold until it lays golden eggs. Also, he asked me if I liked the new sports car he acquired in a completely unrelated venture to golden eggs, and then he offered to sell me some really cheap goose liver. What a guy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Hey Octopode, do you think this game will actually come out in the form in which CIG currently describe it? This is not a trick or some sort of elaborate trap, I'm genuinely interested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:46
|
|
Fil5000 posted:Hey Octopode, do you think this game will actually come out in the form in which CIG currently describe it? In a reasonably similar form as they have described, yes. In a form as people imagine? No.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:Oh good, Blue's still alive. Where the hell have you been?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Thank goodness Octopode is here, I was starting to have fun reading this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:She wrote the first piece on September 22nd, in which it was rumored that two were fired on the spot. I am not disagreeing at all, but if you are all about annonymous sources and protecting them from disclosure because they want to remain annonymous, you should never approach any potential sources, publically, via twitter to the world. Especially if you are running with an article later on that uses ex-employees as sources.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
BluestreakBTHR posted:Where the hell have you been? Not where all the cool kids are, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:49
|
|
thatguy posted:Thank goodness Octopode is here, I was starting to have fun reading this thread. We all have our own version of shitposting. Mine just doesn't involve the same poo poo repeated ad nauseum from six threads ago.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
sorla78 posted:I am not disagreeing at all, but if you are all about annonymous sources and protecting them from disclosure because they want to remain annonymous, you should never approach any potential sources, publically, via twitter to the world. Especially if you are running with an article later on that uses ex-employees as sources. So if you're saying that if ISIS sends me a twitter message trying to recruit me, and then sets off a roadside bomb, then it must have been me that did it? Because that's your logic. Octopode posted:We all have our own version of shitposting. Mine just doesn't involve the same poo poo repeated ad nauseum from six threads ago. No, your shitposting involves reading half a wikipedia page on contract law and then wasting 3 pages proving how incorrect you are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Octopode posted:In a reasonably similar form as they have described, yes. In a form as people imagine? No. What would it take to make you think it wasn't going to happen? I ask only because everything I've seen and played so far makes me think if we're lucky we'll get a single player game that's quite fun. I've not seen anything to suggest that the multiplayer stuff is going to be anything other than a mess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
You know its bad when the only shill left in this thread has to resort to tedious, legalistic arguments over contract law that nobody gives a poo poo about in order to defend this game
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
Octopode posted:In a reasonably similar form as they have described, yes. In a form as people imagine? No. I'm sorry that reality doesn't fall neatly into the personal narrative you've constructed...
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:53
|
|
