Are refunds for our packages/ships from CIG now okay to be requested?

  • JackDstripper

    Posts: 51

    Posted:
    Posted:
    no.
    it was very well explained how these kickstarter donations work. nothing is guaranteed. you get what you get, when you get it.
    i blame premature ejectulation syndrome.
  • Maniacal_Ginger

    Posts: 904

    Posted:
    Posted:
    No refunds! We have to give them the resources and freedom to continue work even over speedbumps in development. The game is on its way, relax and let them focus on it :)
  • Waffl3z

    Posts: 9

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]



    And how much did you pledge?
    Why pledge something in the first place if you think it's not a good investment in the future? (future kickass game in this case..)

    I wouldn't want a refund unless the project gets canceled.

    I don't even remember, 50ish dollars. Enough to buy an actual game that exists if they gave it back.

  • BadDawg

    Posts: 2391

    Posted:
    Edited: by BadDawg
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    I would love to have my money back, even under the condition that I would never be allowed to play the game if it is ever released, since I don't believe it will be.

    I wrote asking for a refund ages ago but it was denied.

    And how much did you pledge?
    Why pledge something in the first place if you think it's not a good investment in the future? (future kickass game in this case..)

    I wouldn't want a refund unless the project gets canceled.
    His 50$ doesn't seem like enough to get tore up about. I mean, if I were worried about 50$, I might not have pledged for a game that was in the development cycle to begin with.

    I feel like I was right to go with what I pledged. I have about 70$ into this project. I figured that this amount is what I would spend on a new game, retail version. And, if I do feel like it is worth it, after release, I will spend more then. I am a fence rider. I like the middle ground. I don't care to take a risk, but I keep full knowledge of the risk, and don't go all out. And, I would NEVER ask, or expect that money back.

    With all that said, I do feel for the guys that had no self control, or were so excited that they felt like taking a BIG risk. I may be on blood pressure med's if I were them. But, even then, they had to have known some of the risk they were taking.
    baddawg.gif
  • Volion

    Posts: 139

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Refunds should be solely at CIG's discretion "right to refuse service to anyone" and issued only under existing legal precedent for permanent separation, disengagement.

    medLREr.png
  • Waflmlk

    Posts: 970

    Posted:
    Posted:
    The poll should rather be
    "Would you request a refund if it was possible" and not "Would you like there to be a publically available refund process now, given this latest development?"
    DS is already putting that vote on a banner claiming "1/3rd of backers want a refund".
    Just saying. (Please don't ban me ;_;)
  • Woopate

    Posts: 3480

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    The poll should rather be
    "Would you request a refund if it was possible" and not "Would you like there to be a publically available refund process now, given this latest development?"
    DS is already putting that vote on a banner claiming "1/3rd of backers want a refund".
    Just saying. (Please don't ban me ;_;)

    I agree with this. The question of whether or not refunds should be possible should be accompanied by a second question of whether or not you'd use that possibility.

    I don't imagine there are many people who want a refund but don't want it to be possible to get one. But there are probably a few who want refunds to be possible but don't want one themselves.
    Ztj7fnR.png
  • Sixth-Venom

    Posts: 375

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Not that i support the "former backer," but some of his demands are actually reasonable such as number 7... Its not some old money company keep it in the family kind of stuff...
  • Draden

    Posts: 96

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Voted no.I'm sorry but you should've been fully aware of what your money is going into.I'm glad that SC got the support it did.I also had the urge to pledge for a higher package(at that time the Connie).I'm kinda glad now i didn't cause of the uncertainty of the project,and I ended up spending only on an Aurora Ln which i CCU'd to the mustang beta.It's not much but im 100% ok if that money ends up being wasted.
    LinusTechTips Conglomerate
  • PsyK7

    Posts: 687

    Posted:
    Edited: by PsyK7
    Posted:
    Edited:
    ­­
    z5idKTU.png
  • Ryoken

    Posts: 981

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I'm torn, while I can see the benefit to having a public form to fill out to get a refund, granted there already is, ask customer support nicely and have a good reason, it really comes down to planning and pacing.

    On the other hand I'm against refunds in that I believe that crowd funding comes with, very well stated, risks. There is no guarantee that you'll get the project you pledged for and less of a guarantee that you'll get anything in return. I pledged for the dream, I pledged a lot more than I should have, but it was all expendible cash that would have been blown on other things of little to no value or consequence. As of this very moment (7/14/15 10:28am PST) I still believe in the project and what CR and team are wanting to do. If I ever stop believing in the project, I may or may not ask for a partial refund (as I have many physical items) and accept what ever answer I have gotten. I understand that the monies spent in pledging to this game can be lost with no return to me what so ever, and I'm ok with that.
    XDMYeD.pngrrJUZwq.png6CC9DS1.png
  • CheeseNorris

    Posts: 1120

    Posted:
    Posted:
    what's up op lol refund, I guess it's the same as going back to the fishmonger telling him that hey your fish stank while I'm getting my ass back home in a 12 hour ride.

    to put things into perspective the game has been up since KS, and we all know that game development ain't gonna take a year or two. if so, those people must be dreaming.
  • mrwiggins38

    Posts: 831

    Posted:
    Posted:
    what ships do you have that you want a refund for?

    [hide]

    Mod Boraxx edit: Although the introduction provides some nice background info on why this thread got started, pointing to the material at hand doesn't influence the question raised by the OP. Hence all reference made are removed, if only to prevent further derailing

    All this time, I have been under the impression that CIG's 'no refunds' policy has always been simply because of the fact, that they likely could not manage to track down every single pledge. Or perhaps other, moreso legally-associated reasons, which would be perfectly understandable from my point of view. But with this latest action on their part, I now see that it is, in fact, perfectly within both, the capability as well as the realm of the law, for CIG to fully refund any backer they should so choose (even should the backer in question not deign to wish so, apparently).

    Now before a similar kind of miscommunication happens as it did in the case of the example I provided up above, let me be clear by saying that at this time I am not yet asking for a refund. However, due to the recent flare-ups and discontent amongst many Star Citizens, I feel it would certainly be in all our best interests to find out, whether or not we have the option to request (and this time also receive, since this latest case proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that CIG is more than capable of this) a refund, should we ever wish to do so in the future. At the very least, it would offer CIG a way of saying to those that are discontent: "If you do not like our policies or the way we do things, you are always free to stop causing mayhem within our community and request a refund and we shall provide it to you." In that manner said people will also (incidentally) have their backer status on the forums removed and be, thus, removed from a solid portion of the RSI forums discussion (as well as they should, since their money has been refunded and they no longer have a stake in this project anymore).

    So - what do the rest of you think?
  • doctorhat

    Posts: 92

    Posted:
    Edited: by doctorhat
    Posted:
    Edited:
    First of all, I think it's great that we're voting about this. If people genuinely want a refund, maybe that should be an option - perhaps certain criteria should be met (don't ask me which, I have no idea) or some other system should be put in place to work this out..perhaps indeed, but let me just make sure you all understand the implication and the logical result of such a thing.

    1. Lets look past our own nose for a second. How many people should it be possible to refund? Obviously it can't be everyone, right? I mean that would be impossible. 3+ years of development = Quite a lot of money already spent. Maybe like, say, 35-40%? Pick any number you find fitting, doesn't really matter.

    2. Suppose everyone lined up to get a refund - who do you choose? Remember it can't be everyone, so a selection process has to happen. Which selection process would be fair to everyone? I'm all ears, but it seems to me this (vote) is the result of an incomplete and unreasonable reaction and so to implement something based on such circumstances, seems ill-advised or at best, unattainable. Please show me my error in thinking, I'm willing to learn.

    3. We pledged, we didn't "tentatively let them hold our money until we want it back or get a bit scared". Maybe because I'm from Denmark, I have a different perception of what "pledging" means (or rather, ought to mean), but I never once had the impression that it meant the latter and I certainly didn't have that impression either when I read the terms under which I was pledging. Did you read the terms? I know it's an unfashionable and "unhip" thing to do - almost like reading the instructions on your cough medicine, but when pledging money to an unfinished product, I think it is becoming of a gentleman or woman (In fact I'd say you are bound by duty), to break a habit of a lifetime and take a TOS seriously..if only this once. They are legal documents after all and cough medicine, is still a medication.

    4. On what grounds are you voting for this? Principle? (I really hope that's why)..or because you think something is afoot? You have to make sure to ask yourself this, and then determine how much actual material (read: evidence) you have for this and, if you do have any, make sure you handle this stuff properly, through properly channels, like an adult - not plastering it in a hyped, over-ranting, over-stated, exaggerated and self-importantly fashion on a random blog where you just flame RSI. Just to make sure we understand each other here: It is okay to speculate and be critical (you should be), but that is not the same as making conspiracy theories and wild accusations based on guesses and stringing together bits and pieces to form a grotesque malformed creature you call "evidence", which at the same time, is begging to be killed due to how horridly deformed it is.

    5. I hope you are all doing this, out of consideration to principle matters (a legitimate reason for doing this), rather than from anything this "DS" guy said (Never heard of him until a few days ago). There are many ways to describe the need for self-grandeur and attention no matter the cost (A package that has a lot of details that would, I'm sure, be very..interesting), but that is all this guy is. Everything he writes, is at least very suggestive of this and is, in most cases, logically and factually inadequate (A claim I'm willing to demonstrate, if given the chance). But that is all he is. He thinks 31% of ALL of the SC community wants this..no Derek, only 31% of the 500 or so people that voted so far, does - are you going to go find the number of total backers yourself, or should I do it for you sweetheart? (See this is the kind of stuff I mean).

    Secondly, please stop for a moment and recognize that this thread exists and is supported by moderators and by extension of that, also supported by RSI/CIG. Especially you guys, sitting out there in twitter land and other such places, flaming away and going "See??? I told you so! Can of worms!" etc. etc.

    Thirdly, as someone who pledged a goodly amount of money, yet doesn't show up here that often, I must say I find it very strange to find such an amount of conspiratorial nonsense. A lot of people are describing this whole ting, as though it were out of a mix between X-Files and Wacky Racers. Superb and exaggerated villainy hidden in misinformation and well produced lies...I know the game industry has been hard on many of you (Hey I worked in the game industry 8+ years now and been a gamer all my life, trust me I know), but good grief people, calm down.


    Oh, and happy voting :-)
    drhatsc.jpg
  • Marcus_Draco

    Posts: 1926

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I do not feel I need a refund at this time, but I would like that option. It isn't even a vote of no confidence either.
    I pledged when I could afford to, but now I've been having financial difficulties, and may benefit from scaling back my pledge somewhat.
    cutlass2.gif
  • Wykstrom

    Posts: 1428

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I absolutely believe that cig should revisit the no refunds policy, but we have to understand and accept that we backed with no such understanding in place.
    Are you an unhappy Retaliator owner? Do what I did and ccu it to a Constellation and let the metrics show CIG that it needs a redesign.
  • Loonie

    Posts: 2777

    Posted:
    Edited: by Loonie
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Boy howdy! Do I have a lot of posts to look through. Can't answer all of them, obviously, so I'll just single out the ones that I feel would need to be addressed the most/have more merit:
    [hide]

    I'm not sure, but I think refunds are currently handled on a case-by-case basis.

    I personally see no need for the policy to change. I encourage all backers to be patient and understanding that things will take the time they take, and even if the final product ends up different from what you expected, it can still be a balanced, fun and rewarding experience by its own right.

    I have seen this community evolve over the course of 2 years now and this type of 'encouragment of patience' has been going on for more than a year now on these forums. During all that time it has most definitely failed to result in more harmony in the community, less work for CIG's community team, less aggravation for those who do not have that much patience and simply would like a refund without having to deal with CIG's very vague and non-clear refund policy (as I've said, I was under the impression it was no longer possible, but it's now clear that is not the case), nor even more importantly (the part that is the most relevant to most that are reading this thread) has it made faithful backers happier to see this forum filled with more negativity than ever.

    Wouldn't this be a much simpler solution, that allowed all parties a solid compromise to part ways and, in general, be a lot more happy if CIG had a simple page that outlined a functional refund process on their main webpage, regardless of backer status (since as I noted - something like more than 80% of all backers are not the Kickstarter Original Backer ones)?
    [hide]

    It is very, VERY simple :) This ain't a safe deposit at your local bank. This is a business, you don't put your money in, to retake it when you so well like it. The money you put in is used in planning and has in that regard allready been used. The reason it's protected from being takrn back by everybody on a whim, is because a mass exodus from backers would destroy the project. Everything that is being developed now is done with a game that is worth 85mil in mind. I cannot wrap my mind around why you can't see that yourself. And losing $250 ain't a reason to open thegates and give millions more back. One thing doesn't give instant access to the other.

    As I noted, I've been here for 2 years now and I still remember very clearly that CIG made it explicitly clear that what they needed to make this game fully was 21 million dollars. They achieved that goal and, if their planning was solid, we will always get that game no matter what. Even then, you will note that they stopped with the stretch goals at around the 65 million dollar mark. At the very least, it should be more than possible to grant refunds down to that level on a 'first come, first serve' basis.

    Why is this so? Because the stretch goals are promises that CIG has committed to, whereas all the money past them is not! In short, CIG promised things like space plants up until that point, but they then discontinued such stretch goal promises. So it is definitely not unreasonable to suppose, that at least 20 million dollars are still, in fact, NOT already spent, as you suggest they must necessarily all be.

    That money could definitely be safely allocated to the refunds, and even with a 'first come, first serve' basis a lot of refunds could be made. And you (along with many other posters) seem to think I am implying, that CIG is obligated to do all these things by law, so let me make this perfectly clear: I am not stating that CIG is under any legal obligation whatsoever to issue refunds! Although I have noted posters ITT talk about local laws perhaps overriding them a lot, ultimately I'll leave that part of the discussion to others (though I do feel it does deserve to be talked about ITT too).

    My OP does not come with that sort of angle at all. It is not about what is legal - it is about what backers would like to see, and what I believe would better this community, both in the short term and in the long run. The angle I am driving at comes with the example, that I provided in the OP - one that perfectly demonstrated, that any backer (or at least a US citizen, as was the case with the OP example in question) can at any time be refunded their spent money without even them asking for it.

    And ultimately, the reason why I started this thread is, that I genuinely believe it would make this community a better one and squash the vast majority of negativity by providing the posters, that cause it, with that clear and visible option if they are ever unsatisfied. Like I said, everyone profits from this in terms of the community's well-being. And make no mistake - that will be worth more than the 20 million dollars I am suggesting (that have not been allocated to any CIG stretch goal or promise as of yet) be loosened up for refunds.

    -----------------------

    That's page 1, dang...need a break but I'll catch up, don't worry.
    "I feel lethal. On the verge of frenzy. I think my mask of sanity is about to slip."
    "This is how you start a revolution. With no fear." -The last 'Hardcore Internet Warlord' on Loonie
    jOcbABg.png
  • Stardragon

    Posts: 3924

    Posted:
    Edited: by Stardragon
    Posted:
    Edited:
    The person that stated this question is a known troll, he promotes his own game on top of his publicity heavy bashing of Star Citizen, he demands an official (!) investigation into what CIG does (he has no reason to do so). I find it only legit to tell that person "Ok, if you do not like this and only use our project to troll and to gain publicity for yourself - then you can be on your way. Goodbye

    This was a special case, so no, IN GENERAL you have no right at this point to demand your money back. It was YOUR decision to back this project, you have to stand by that decision. That is what being an "adult that makes financial decisions" means. Unless CIG is breaking the law by being a scam, you are out of your luck (which it is not).

    I support CIG in the decision of how to handle the "case in question" but that they did not anticipate this creates "waves" and prepared a statement is naive. This case was special. What moved them to action was public. They need to be public about this as well, at least in a very small way.
    mpWdTpa.png
    I'm Hidden. I Freelance. I Reclaim. I Trade. I Rescue.
  • Schpam

    Posts: 2780

    Posted:
    Posted:

    Open Refunds are a bad idea. They encourage fickle minded consumerism. The point with crowdfunding is to raise a reliable source of capital so you can make good development decisions. You can't do that if your planning is based around the idea that at any moment people can take back your funding. How do you plan for the future when you can not rely on the present?

    Pretty soon you are not making decisions based on what is ultimately good for the game in the long term, but what is safe and secure over the short term. It leads to an environment that is unpredictable and volatile. Release a patch to Arena Commander and you raise some funding, schedule a new feature and commit that funding... oops, an online game website misinterpreted an offhanded comment, now the spending you committed has been cancelled and refunded.

    Oh! I don't get my asymmetrical herald, my joystick isn't working, I don't like the price of the concept, you gave someone else LTI... I'm holding your source of funding hostage under the persistent threat of my demands for a refund whenever I don't get my way.


    How are you supposed to pioneer a new way of making a game without the stability of knowing you have the support to take risks?

    If we were dealing with a finished product, and not the development process of that product, this issue would be different. If Star Citizen was a developed game and someone bought it, played it and felt they needed their money back, that would be one thing. However, to pledge towards developing the product and then demanding a refund before the final product can be demonstrated to work as advertised, is something else. Cloud Imperium should not be subjected to that fickle minded uncertainty while taking on the risk of innovating something new at the same time.

    That is why some people should clearly wait to buy the finished product because it is obvious that they are not prepared for the risk of not getting what they want. If what you have seen already is not enough to convince you that you'll get value for your money one way or another, then you should hold onto that money for your sake and everyone else. Otherwise you have no excuse.
    Intel i7 Core 3930k (3.8ghz) Win7 x64 Pro
    16GB Corsair RAM
    (2x) MSI GTX670 Power Edition (353.90 WHQL) - SLI Video
    ASUS Xonar Essence STX - Sound
    (2x) 240GB Sandisk SSD, (1x) 3TB WD Black HDD - Storage

  • Trollslayer

    Posts: 4797

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Terminating the contract may just be the first CIG move. They may decide to put charges against Derek Smart.
    Derek Smart may claim he is only sharing his opinion but he has done more than that. He has made serious accusations that if false, CIG may decide to to move with legal action.
    For instance, Derek Smart made accusations that CIG may have used backers money for private jet trips.
    By doing that, Derek Smart may have crossed the line.


    It's highly unlikely CIG will take any action.

    No matter how wild his accusations are, CIG would have to show that his claims cost them business.

    So as well as giving DS the drama he wants, they'd have to somehow prove in court that a lot of people take him seriously and trust what he says. I wouldn't want the job of trying to prove that even one person on the planet thinks he's not a nutter, never mind enough of them to damage SC.
    MrpKpzH.jpg&quot=
  • Lysan

    Posts: 6116

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I see that Mr. smart mentioned me in his tweeter, well Mr Smart I stand by every word, every post I ever did. I got banned more than once, it didn't shut me up, it never will.

    When I said that refunds lead to nowhere I mean just that. I are all here to make this game happen, if for some reason there are serious concerns, like wasting backers money on not game development activities, we need more that just insinuations. We need hard facts. You Mr Smart didn't deliver any hard facts, only hearsay and in my world that is not valid. Actually I don't give a damn if CR wife, brother, friends, dog and cat work for CIG. I'm only concerned about the end goal.

    So as long no one can actually prove anything that has caused damage to the development of SC I will not do a damn thing.

    I'm still critical, I will still raise my voice Mr Smart and I will most likely get another ban someday. I agree to disagree, and I will fight for you right to raise your voice even if I don't agree. I will do that for everyone and that include CR, BL and the whole CIG team.

    So Mr Smart are you all talk or can you actually do the walk ?

    Drops mic and leave
    LMC - Zeus (Retaliator class) LMC - Hyperion (Constellation class) LMC - Atlas (Banu MM class) LMC - Tethys (Starfarer class) LMC - Hermes ( XI:AN class) LMC - Phoebe (Carrack class) LMC - Menoetius (Hull E class) LMC - Vulcan (Orion class)
  • Uber-Goober

    Posts: 2991

    Posted:
    Posted:
    It's up to Chris and CIG what kind of refund/return policy they want.
    Amazon, Wallmart, and lots of big retailers have pretty liberal return policy's ( Amazon rocks). It's in their best interest to keep customers happy. People will be more willing to buy into a game if they know that if the game turns out to be not what they expected, they can get their money back. I know personally that I use and shop (Prime Member) more on Amazon because of their return policy. Refusing a refund/return to people that are unhappy will just make them even more unhappy. And they will spread their unhappiness to anyone that will listen.
    In life ve get to soon Old't,
    Unt to late schmart.
  • Hilarius

    Posts: 4913

    Posted:
    Posted:
    It seems that this very thread is being linked from an external gaming news website concerning the question raised by the OP. The answer to this question posed by the OP seems to be of great interest. I believe in SC as a project and I believe it will succeed in its goals. Perhaps (despite the "Terms and Conditions") pledge money could be returned to those that are just seemingly interested in seeing the game fail. "Poisoned" backers could be more of a distraction than they are worth to the ongoing development of the game. Maybe giving them an "out" would be beneficial in the long run.
    Join PAGAN today!

    Warning: This is not a warning!
  • oninoshiko

    Posts: 5077

    On Probation
    Posted:
    Edited: by oninoshiko
    On Probation
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    The person that stated this question is a known troll, he promotes his own game on top of his publicity heavy bashing of Star Citizen, he demands an official (!) investigation into what CIG does (he has no reason to do so). I find it only legit to tell that person "Ok, if you do not like this and only use our project to troll and to gain publicity for yourself - then you can be on your way. Goodbye

    This was a special case, so no, IN GENERAL you have no right at this point to demand your money back. It was YOUR decision to back this project, you have to stand by that decision. That is what being an "adult that makes financial decisions" means. Unless CIG is breaking the law by being a scam, you are out of your luck (which it is not).

    I support CIG in the decision of how to handle the "case in question" but that they did not anticipate this creates "waves" and prepared a statement is naive. This case was special. What moved them to action was public. They need to be public about this as well, at least in a very small way.

    So, what you're saying is the policy should be "refunds only if you are a big enough and public enough asshole."
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Terminating the contract may just be the first CIG move. They may decide to put charges against Derek Smart.
    Derek Smart may claim he is only sharing his opinion but he has done more than that. He has made serious accusations that if false, CIG may decide to to move with legal action.
    For instance, Derek Smart made accusations that CIG may have used backers money for private jet trips.
    By doing that, Derek Smart may have crossed the line.


    It's highly unlikely CIG will take any action.

    No matter how wild his accusations are, CIG would have to show that his claims cost them business.

    So as well as giving DS the drama he wants, they'd have to somehow prove in court that a lot of people take him seriously and trust what he says. I wouldn't want the job of trying to prove that even one person on the planet thinks he's not a nutter, never mind enough of them to damage SC.
    It would actually be worse than that because he would also get to do discovery. He has the opportunity to prove what he said was true, as truth is an absolute defence against defamation (in the US, it's not in other jurisdictions).

    There is another KS I backed which is about a year late and set a return policy which differed from KS's: "We would rather not have a customer, then have an unhappy one. We will refund anyone who is unwilling to wait longer." It's resulted in a few refunds, but not many. It's also resulted in much lower toxicity.
  • bambam62g

    Posts: 3468

    Posted:
    Posted:
    nope, i think you should be responsible before you spend your money on something. no refunds in crowdfunding.
    2ujtsld.jpg
  • wcloaf

    Developer

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Hey guys!

    I believe I can clarify this. We refunded Mr. Smart’s package because he was using Star Citizen as a platform to gain attention as part of a campaign to promote his ‘Line of Defense’ space game. Our ToS (or in this case, the Kickstarter ToS) allows us to refund troubled users who we would rather not have interacting with the community. The process lets us entirely disable their accounts, preventing them from playing the finished game. Think of it as the video game equivalent of a ‘we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone’ sign in a restaurant. We’ve used this ability a limited number of times in the past, always with the aim of improving the community (until today, the most famous example being our old friend jcrg99/Manzes/PonyMillar/he of many other alts.)

    I do now want to stress that that is not to say you can get your money back by simply being as obnoxious as possible; we’re also able to ban accounts from the forums without requiring a refund. But sometimes we take a look at a user and decide that they’re so toxic or their intentions are so sinister that we simply don’t want them associated with Star Citizen.

    As for refund requests working the other way: per the ToS, we’re not required to offer them. We do try and work with backers who are facing hardships, but the hard truth is that the money is by necessity being spent to develop a game rather than sitting unused somewhere (that being the significant difference with Steam; those refunds are taken out of their games’ profits rather than their development budgets.)
  • Captain_Bosh

    Posts: 1632

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I completely disagree with no quibbles refunds for everyone during crowdfunding, its has too much potential to hinder the project and ruin it for everyone.

    Case by case (and common sense) refunds are fine, CS are pretty reasonable as far as things like that go.
    Referral code: STAR-7D2G-GW2M (5,000 UEC free with new accounts)
    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/enlist?referral=STAR-7D2G-GW2M
  • bambam62g

    Posts: 3468

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Hey guys!

    I believe I can clarify this. We refunded Mr. Smart’s package because he was using Star Citizen as a platform to gain attention as part of a campaign to promote his ‘Line of Defense’ space game. Our ToS (or in this case, the Kickstarter ToS) allows us to refund troubled users who we would rather not have interacting with the community. The process lets us entirely disable their accounts, preventing them from playing the finished game. Think of it as the video game equivalent of a ‘we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone’ sign in a restaurant. We’ve used this ability a limited number of times in the past, always with the aim of improving the community (until today, the most famous example being our old friend jcrg99/Manzes/PonyMillar/he of many other alts.)

    I do now want to stress that that is not to say you can get your money back by simply being as obnoxious as possible; we’re also able to ban accounts from the forums without requiring a refund. But sometimes we take a look at a user and decide that they’re so toxic or their intentions are so sinister that we simply don’t want them associated with Star Citizen.

    As for refund requests working the other way: per the ToS, we’re not required to offer them. We do try and work with backers who are facing hardships, but the hard truth is that the money is by necessity being spent to develop a game rather than sitting unused somewhere (that being the significant difference with Steam; those refunds are taken out of their games’ profits rather than their development budgets.)

    thanks ben!
    2ujtsld.jpg
  • Loonie

    Posts: 2777

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    You still didn't answer my question. Why would any company give you a refund after you've enjoyed almost 3 years of content?

    That was not your original question. Your original question was, and I quote:
    [hide]

    You can't wait out a full year after buying a new TV to see if you like it before you decide to return it to a major retailer why should games be any different?

    And I answered that with essentially: "Because this is not even remotely the same as buying a TV."

    Now to answer your new question: No person in this community has enjoyed almost 3 years of all the content that they have pledged for. That is simple fact. A singleplayer functional, while multiplayer buggy, Arena Commander is not full extent of the content, that we all pledged for. Ergo, we have not been enjoying 3 years of all the content we have pledged for. Why would it be unreasonable (again - not saying CIG has to legally do this) to ask for a refund policy on the grounds of not getting to enjoy the content that we pledged for within these almost 3 years?
    [hide]

    I want to preface this statement with I am not dissatisfied or wanting a refund.
    A refund button would be a two fold problem.

    1.it would be admitting indirectly that there are issues and here is your way out.

    2.opens the door to a (run on the bank) situation. Look what happened in the 30s and in Greece now when panic in trust in the banks caused people to drain banks. If enough dissatisfied people hit that refund button within a short enough time CIG could go from making a game to making a claim of chapter(insert # here) bankruptcy and not making anything.

    Which is why I have been calling the money I pledge a "Donation". You can't pull your money out of the red kettle after you threw it in. Never pledge more money than you can afford to flush down the toilet if shit goes wrong. Fail to heed that advice at your own peril.

    1. And what is wrong with doing that? Every game development in the history of the worlds has had issues, as you put them. And ultimately, it is a question of whether or not you want to put up with them or not. But this is not a judgement backers could make back in 2012 or even 2013. No one can see the future. So being able to do this would definitely be a good thing for the consumer.

    2. As I have elaborated in my post before this one, we could easily set a limit of something like 20 million (or up until the 65 million pledge goal, to which they have committed with their stretchgoals) and that way CIG's planning would remain fully and well funded.
    [hide]



    Ok...for the sake of getting an anwer through:

    The customer support at CIG is awesome and the mods are great...contact them directly if you need help on the subject.

    Sadly, a lot of people that have recently demanded refunds via customer support ect. have been waiting for an answer for as long as 2 months. As I noted, even those that spent as much as 5000$ and would like their money back. Clearly, there would need to be a system designed to more easily facilitate this process. Why would CIG want to do this you might ask again? Well, as I said - it would pay off dividends for them in the community being more healthy, less negative and more constructive by allowing those that would always complain a way to leave with their money and have no more say in the matter.

    That's page 2...continuing...
    "I feel lethal. On the verge of frenzy. I think my mask of sanity is about to slip."
    "This is how you start a revolution. With no fear." -The last 'Hardcore Internet Warlord' on Loonie
    jOcbABg.png
  • Bolow-Santosi

    Posts: 978

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Hey guys!

    I believe I can clarify this. We refunded Mr. Smart’s package because he was using Star Citizen as a platform to gain attention as part of a campaign to promote his ‘Line of Defense’ space game. Our ToS (or in this case, the Kickstarter ToS) allows us to refund troubled users who we would rather not have interacting with the community. The process lets us entirely disable their accounts, preventing them from playing the finished game. Think of it as the video game equivalent of a ‘we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone’ sign in a restaurant. We’ve used this ability a limited number of times in the past, always with the aim of improving the community (until today, the most famous example being our old friend jcrg99/Manzes/PonyMillar/he of many other alts.)

    Derek Smart is a blowhard idiot but handing him more ammunition that fits in with his narrative is incredibly short sighted at best and heinously stupid at worst
This discussion has been closed.