Internet Kraken posted:Wait what? It finally happened? This scam finally imploded and is going down in flames? Goons decided they were tired of believing in Chris Roberts, so they found someone even less likely to succeed to believe in instead.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 13:09 |
|
sorla78 posted:Who cares, private companies go listed and have to publish their figures and have them audited, it's not the end of you business to be honest about your financials. It's only your end if you indeed have something to hide. There's no way out of this mess anymore unless CIG releases a financial statement, if they have been honest that^s the only way to shut everyone up - or they relase SQ42 on next Saturday. Anything else is just going to gently caress them on their revenue streams and they will go belly-up, unless someone dares to buy them out. They could release a full, audited financial statement today and the only responses from people in this thread would be either a) they've only got $x left, they're doomed! or b) They've got $x left! Clearly they've been squandering funds away to run off with instead of making the game! It doesn't matter what the value of $x is. Hell, there would probably be both responses simultaneously. The only thing that would make anyone who's already decided the game is a giant scam change their mind is if they released the game, completed, in full, with every possible feature. Just look at the response to Chris's letter here already. Last week, people were claiming they were trying to hide things by not saying anything in response to Smart's comments, lambasting them for not just coming out and making it clear Sandi and Chris were married (despite that happening literally years ago), and such. CIG does all that, and suddenly it's a sign of doom and gloom that CIG stooped to respond to such incredulous allegations, so of course they must be true! For every thing CIG actually responds to or allegation they prove false, people will just latch on to another possibility. Because none of this is really about accountability, or who's telling the truth, or whether the game gets made.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:18
|
|
AP posted:That's not really true Octopode and I think you know it. I can't even read all of the Chairman's letter because it's that painful and you know how much of this poo poo I read, it's loving terrible PR. He attacked the journalist, he's completely lost the plot and sounds like one of his own fans with the "click bait" bullshit. CIG will continue to be inept at media relations and community management. They always have been. I was only speaking to the proclivities of the people here and elsewhere that don't really care about any of this beyond the entertainment value generated by the crossfire. The same ones spouting stuff about the game not existing or obviously being a scam despite the patently obvious thousands upon thousands of manhours of effort expended on it already, and conveniently waving away any evidence to the contrary. They will always find another reason to justify their viewpoint, no matter how little evidence there is to support it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:33
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:I repeat- what is something that, if true, would cause you to re-evaluate your viewpoint? I had a nice long response typed up to your previous post and the internet just ate it, but I'll respond to this again at least. Evidence of forward progress towards the final game stopping. It wouldn't be hard to see, and it would be much better of evidence of monetary or company problems than anything Derek Smart posts.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:52
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:welcome back octopode Catching back up at work after two weeks off right at the beginning of a fiscal year doesn't leave me much time for internet spaceships.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 00:00
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Well this thread moves fast. This was covered earlier--the software was extant, but CIG has funded considerable development and improvement. Turbulent gave them reduced rates in exchange for Turbulent retaining the license to redistribute and sell those improvements to others instead of CIG maintaining exclusive rights to them.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 00:32
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:Archive still has the version of the TOS that was 'valid' between 2013-2015. That's not how TOS work. Once you agree to the new one, you're bound to it for all your stuff, not just stuff after that date. You're not locked into the ones in effect at the time of any one particular purchase for that purchase because you're not actually purchasing a product, you're purchasing an ongoing license access to which is subject to those terms and which can be modified later down the line if both parties agree to it. Once you agree to the new ones, that's it, they're applicable; if you don't agree, you don't have to accept the new ones, but that means you no longer are able to make use of your license and your relationship with the service provider is over (and are, if applicable under those terms, then entitled to a refund--but there is no obligation for them to do so under US law unless the terms promised it).
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 16:05
|
|
Kimsemus posted:This depends entirely on how the original agreement was written, and is not always the case. There is neither an automatic grandfather clause into an old ToS, nor is there a guarantee of service termination when there is a new ToS issued (Pretty much how cell phone providers and old/new plans with changing terms works, they don't automatically shut off your phone or cancel your service because they don't actively provide your plan anymore). The original terms have a single-side severability clause upon notification on their website, and all have had appropriate modification and agreement clauses upon notification; even if not all of the terms are enforceable, the terms have severability clauses and there's little doubt that the limited licensure of digital goods is valid as they've been tested several times in US and other courts.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 16:15
|
|
Truga posted:The initial goal for SC was 2 million + 10 million in VC cash he got told he'd get if he can successfully crowdfund this. Crowdfunding wasn't even his original idea. No, the original plan was for ~$20 million of total budget, with at least $1M of that coming from crowdfunding to prove interest so that he could get the rest via VC cash.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 16:18
|
|
Kimsemus posted:Sources, please. For the ToS? robertsspaceindustries.com and the archive.org archive thereof? For the applicability of limited licensure and ownership rights of digital goods? I think the precedent setting case was Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., but if not there, there have been several cases subsequent that have affirmed the right of the copyright holder to retain ownership and license use of digital products to consumers.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 16:24
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:It's completely how they can work, and this is one case. It isn't how they work. The key here is that you as a consumer are under no obligation to accept the new terms, and can sever the agreement if you choose not to--they aren't taking your consumer choice away, but if you don't agree to the new services, you can't keep using your license. They can't force you to accept the new dates, but if you do accept them, they affect you. The situation you're describing would create a situation where CIG is obligated to continue providing you services under the original terms until you decide they don't have to--which is a ridiculous thing to believe would actually happen. Now--that's for the US, which generally has very business-friendly consumer protection laws. In the EU and other places with more consumer-focused protection laws, it probably isn't the case.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 16:33
|
|
Tank Boy Ken posted:Buying online in germany: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widerruf_%28Recht%29 (not up to date but was up till 2014) 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.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 16:49
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, however their revision will not hold because it removes basic consumer rights: The rules for physical products and digital licenses are extremely different (even if they probably shouldn't be; that's the way the courts have ruled). Say you pay a flat fee to access Apple Music. When you pay the fee, they have contracts to provide access to 10 songs and you agree to a TOS that you agree to be able to listen to those 10 songs. A year later, they renegotiate and only have access to 5 songs, so they revise their TOS to only allow you access to those 5 songs. At this point, they offer you the option to agree to these new TOS to only have access to those 5 songs if you want to keep using their service. Either you agree to the reduced song selection, or you can sever the agreement. They have no obligation to keep providing you access to those other 5 songs in perpetuity--which is what they would have to do if you had the option of always keeping the original agreement in place but keep using their services. To keep the example card based, if you want: do you believe that because you paid for a card pack in Hearthstone, Blizzard has to keep those cards you got available in the game forever? If they remove one from the game, or even shut down the game forever, are you entitled to a refund for those cards? How about if there was a problem with their code, and it turns out that even though they said a card was in the game, you could never actually get it in a pack? Does that entitle you to a refund for that pack?
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 17:00
|
|
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). 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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Kimsemus posted: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? Sorry if I'm going to take the opinions of hundreds of companies operating under these principles with many court cases examining the question of digital licensure over your questionable legal expertise, who made an rear end of himself the last time legal arguments were discussed in a Star Citizen thread Fil5000 posted: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. I answered this yesterday--a stopping of identifiable progress towards the promised end state.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 17:57
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:First, checked my email. Nothing within weeks of February 6th Once you logged in following the ToS change, you were presented with the full new ToS again when you agreed to them, fulfilling the presentation requirements. As for the FTC page you keep citing, once again, that's specifically describing rules for specific deliverable goods and merchandise, not digital licenses, for which the rules are not the same and are much more complicated.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 18:05
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:LAWRENCE FELDMAN v GOOGLE, INC As for being in violation of the ToS: them being in violation with one individual does not invalidate the ToS for everyone. It's a separate agreement for each customer.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 18:11
|
|
Truga posted:TOS is just there to discourage people from doing thing. If they go to court, they'll get to do thing 99% of the time, but 99% people don't go to court over
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 18:15
|
|
.
"
Tank Boy Ken posted:Clicking a ToS doesn't waive your customer rights in the EU. Just saying. Yeah, like I said, the EU / other countries with actual consumer protection laws are a whole different beast. In the US, however, the law is heavily, heavily favored towards "if you agree to something with the merchant you're pretty much hosed."
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 18:16
|
|
Kimsemus posted:It doesn't in the US either, companies just rely on people being lazy or not having the funds to fight it out. Court cases disagree with you. OhDearGodNo helpfully linked some that do so already.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 18:21
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:No, you were presented with a link to the new ToS, with the agreement on a separate page. I just showed you legal precedent to highlight that that does not equal assent. The next time I logged into my account following the ToS change, I was presented with the click wrapper with the full terms of service. I can't guarantee the same happened to you, but I suspect it did. That's the presentation I'm discussing. Now, additionally, they have a clickbox for each transaction, but that's not the only presentation they've performed.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Please refer to this image when you realize you're lovely at law research and have no hope of providing for yourself in the future rather than killing yourself.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 18:32
|
|
Deki posted:Christ, I haven't spent that much on gaming in the last 4 years total. You should try being more successful in your life. It opens lots of possibilities.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 18:48
|
|
Agrajag posted:ahh yes the response of im so rich in defence to being a complete dumbfuck Rich dumb people still have better lives than poor, smart people. Of course, both types are still better off than people that post in this thread.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 18:59
|
|
AP posted:Summer of 2013 a lot of people thought the game would be good and wanted them to reach full funding, I had well over a thousand in then. When they reached full funding and it was obvious they were never going to stop selling poo poo I started cashing out within days of the LTI sale ending in November. I was stupid but at the time it didn't seem that crazy, funny now when you look back at all that's happened. It sure is a good thing you didn't list those purchases on a spreadsheet that hasn't been updated in two years. Someone might think they can reliably make some sort of judgment based on that single data point alone.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 19:15
|
|
AP posted:I think I'm in that spreadsheet too. Hey, if you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at? Oh no, you are. And apparently your listed spending, and thus you character and worth as a human being is more than twice as poor as mine!
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 19:30
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Well apparently whatever CIG did with their robots.txt file didn't prevent archives.org from archiving the site today, unless there's a record of when the file was changed. I suck at things but it looks like the robots.txt file is just designed to keep crawlers out of the picture folder. robots.txt is more of a suggestion than anything, and I don't think that archive.org's crawler obeys it, since it would kind of defeat the point of their mission. Edit: Nevermind, looks like they do obey it--though there's nothing forcing them to.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 19:32
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:The same person that paid $1500 is the same person I quoted. So, the money spent only matters if someone doesn't buy into your particular favored form of groupthink, instead of agreeing with you when you're wrong. Got it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 19:44
|
|
sorla78 posted:Nothing that rivals Sandi. There were also cryptic posts on twitter from a recently fired employee implying that the reports of her toxic work environment firing were a load of poo poo, but that doesn't get mentioned much. At the very least, there's a more complicated story than the rather one-sided hellhole depicted by the Escapist articles, and the Escapist should be rightly criticized for not trying to investigate and countermand the evidence presented to them before publishing it. That's the missing element from their entire approach here.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 20:16
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:Just off my memory, they provided their names, written proof of employment (badges, etc) plus video and skype conversations. They could be entirely legitimate sources, completely verified, all providing the same story. Without any attempt to find facts that disagree with that story, the only thing you can say for certain is that they all gave reports of the same story. It doesn't actually make that story true. Lots of independent, verified people, for instance, gave similar facts and stories about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs following the first Gulf War. Those stories turned out not to be true. The same might be true here, but no one can say for certain or not without at least attempting to prove the story, as presented by one side only, wrong.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 20:46
|
|
G0RF posted:If you are likening Chris Roberts to Saddam Hussein and Robert's Cloud Imperium Games to Hussein's Dictatorial Kleptocracy, then I think we've found some common ground. No, I think I compared Chelsea Day to Colin Powell at some point. I'm not sure.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 20:54
|
|
AP posted:The thing about bitter ex staff making a story up is that, sure what you say is possible, especially with how easily people can communicate online nowadays, but they'd have to be really really pissed off to go through with it. I'd agree if not for other circumstantial evidence. If Chris really did run such a toxic environment, why would all these people who have worked with him before agree to come work with him again after leaving already established careers? If the environment is so toxic, why are people still working there for reported below average industry wages? When there are names attached to the comments, why don't any former employees, whether fired or quit, corroborate the story? Why was it not item #1 in the artist's complaints about why he left, or at least mentioned? I fully believe there is a micromanaged perma-crunch culture at CIG. The crazier stuff seems much less credible.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 21:53
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:They are reporters, not detectives. To prove libel CIG needs to prove that The Escapist knowingly printed false information for the sole purpose of damaging CIG. What you're describing is effectively the basis of the neutral reportage principle, and it's questionable whether it applies here--mainly because it's only officially recognized as a defense in a few jurisdictions' libel laws, but also because one of the key requirements is that the statements must be reported disinterestedly. I think a reasonable case could be made based on the content of the podcast and twitter postings that this article was not published in a disinterested manner. If neutral reportage does not apply, then the publisher actually does need to do a lot more to verify the authenticity of the statements. They can't just go "well, we verified the sources, and we're just publishing the facts as presented" and be protected from libel.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 17:34
|
|
Young Freud posted:What about the fact that they not only tried to verify claims, recognized and ultimately ignored of unconfirmed anonymous sources and disregarded the more outlandish ones because they didn't have the evidence, but also gave Roberts a platform to defend himself on. They went above and beyond the "neutral reportage" principle. A lot depends on the judge at hand, for California's libel and defamation laws. If Sandi/CIG isn't considered some form of public figure (which she may or may not, based on California's definition), then all that needs to be proved is that the Escapist was negligent--they don't have to prove actual malice. CIG tried to lay the foundation for that by showing that other publications had refused to print the same allegations with the same information available to them. If they are a public figure, then actual malice has to be proved, and there probably isn't much chance of that (unless there's an email out there between Derek Smart and the Escapist saying something like "publish this! It'll destroy Chris Roberts!" and the statements do turn out to be false). But, essentially, it all boils down to 1) did the Escapist do what other reasonably prudent publishers would have done to verify the statements were credible and true (it's not enough to prove they were from legitimate sources--it's about the statements themselves) and 2) were the statements actually true. If either one of those is true, there's no case. If both are false, Escapist can be held liable.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 13:09 |
|
OhDearGodNo posted:This is the most ridiculous line of bullshit you've posted here to date. The only time you're protected by the identity of the source alone is when you are reporting on statements from official sources, such as government officials or reports. If you're reporting on the statements of private individuals, you're liable for the content of the statements themselves if you failed to meet reasonably prudent standards of validating them.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 18:31
|
|