Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 335 posts

Re: ‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

#311

Post by nebulous1 »

im3w1l wrote: post #272

I had an opposite experience of crowdfunding just yesterday. I had played the f2p clicker heroes (with iap, but it was easy to hack your save to get them for free, but i didn't) and liked it a lot. Never having supported them in any way, I thought that them asking for $20 to make a sequel was a perfect opportunity to give back even if I got no game for it. And yesterday, half a year after they asked for money the bet…

Well, the guy's point is that they changed what they were making after they took his money. This isn't something that's outside of their control, and it's not unreasonable to suggest they shouldn't do that unless they're willing to refund.

Re: ‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

#312

Post by krageon »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #214
NullPrefix wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words if ToS can be changed retroactively, it's a wildcard agreement. Is there even a point in reading it?

The simple solution is we need to ban all ToSs and EULAs. Make it a crime to try to enforce them on users, one that results in mandatory prison time (else companies will still use them to scare consumers, same as the warranty void if removed stickers).

EULAs are already not legal in Europe, so they're halfway there. You could always move there!

Re: ‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

#313

Post by krageon »

spyder wrote: post #277
spathi_fwiffo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is followed by "The original terms of service, according to RSI’s own records, make no mention of arbitration before February 2015". The author is making some confusing word choices.

According to their website the ToS issued at 08 29, 2013, already contained the arbitration, and only the version issued at 10 10, 2012 is missing it. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos

They can retroactively change anything on their website. Of course, the same goes for the other party.

Re: ‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

#314

Post by CryptoPunk »

acdha wrote: post #310
CryptoPunk wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is forcing you to use forced arbitration. You're not entitled to someone else's service. If you don't want to accept forced arbitration, then don't use their service. What you're really saying is that you want to prevent me from offering a service on the condition that contract disputes are handled by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. This desire to impose restrictions on other people's free action is…

This is a rather naive position which ignores the information and power disparities. The average person doesn’t have time to review every contract for everything they use, nor is it clear why this should be unlike every other thing you buy simply because it involves software, and there are whole sectors where the only option is not to have e.g. mobile phone service. It’s especially sad to see you trying to spin block…

What you're referring to is an entirely different issue, which is informed consent. If the contract is designed to get the user to quickly glance over it, and agree to unfair terms without understanding it, then yes it's unfair, and any properly functioning court system will void it.

But that's a separate issue from the possibility of including arbitration clauses in a contract, which simply expands the range of possible contracts two consenting parties can enter into.

Re: ‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

#315

Post by acdha »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #314
acdha wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a rather naive position which ignores the information and power disparities. The average person doesn’t have time to review every contract for everything they use, nor is it clear why this should be unlike every other thing you buy simply because it involves software, and there are whole sectors where the only option is not to have e.g. mobile phone service. It’s especially sad to see you trying to spin block…

What you're referring to is an entirely different issue, which is informed consent. If the contract is designed to get the user to quickly glance over it, and agree to unfair terms without understanding it, then yes it's unfair, and any properly functioning court system will void it. But that's a separate issue from the possibility of including arbitration clauses in a contract, which simply expands the range of poss…

You don’t expand options by removing them. Being forced to use a company’s appeals process is a distinct reduction in freedom from the status quo.

Re: ‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

#316

Post by izuchukwu »

ikeboy wrote: post #295
izuchukwu wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they began backing before their birthday in 2012, today’s birthday would make an 8 year age difference. Happy birthday gp!

No it wouldn't. If they were 25 on some date in 2012, then they'd be 31 on the same date in 2018 and the oldest they could be at any point in 2018 would be 32

Whoops, I misremembered my age in 2012 when calculating that. Their birthday yesterday would, in fact, make at most a 7 year age difference. Maybe gp simply misremembered too ;)

Re: ‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

#317

Post by goldfishparty »

gwern wrote: post #112
cornholio wrote: post #66

He lost because of a forced arbitration clause. This massive privatization of justice where any boilerplate service or product now comes with forced arbitration is making my blood boil. The justice system should always be an option when arbitration fails, and arbitration should take no more than a reasonable time to fail (say, two weeks for this $5000 amount). The whole point of a small claims court is to handle such…

I'm more disturbed by the parts of the article which say that he never agreed to a forced arbitration clause in the first place because it wasn't in the ToS when he paid, but the judge decided to go with the later ToS anyway: > According to Lord, the terms of service when he made the initial pledge aren’t the same terms of service they are today. The original terms of service, according to RSI’s own records, make no…

RSI isn't even the name of a real company. It's a fictional company in SC. Cloud Imperium Games, CIG, is the actual company. The article in general is missing a lot of detail.

Re: ‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

#318

Post by jasonlotito »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #281
jasonlotito wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He lost because of a forced arbitration clause. Just to be clear, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have lost otherwise, or that forced arbitration wouldn't have worked in his favor. If forced arbitration wasn't a consideration, he might still have lost.

Arbitration is a net loss for the human. The rulings are secret. The impersonal corporation knows which arbiters favor it and which do not, and can blacklist based on that. Arbiters only get work if they continue to rule for corporations. The corporation knows which arguments worked for it in the past with arbiters, but the judgements are secret and the human cannot research as a corporation can. Arbitration is a bia…

That's all beside the point.

Re: ‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

#319

Post by salawat »

jasonlotito wrote: post #318
kevin_b_er wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arbitration is a net loss for the human. The rulings are secret. The impersonal corporation knows which arbiters favor it and which do not, and can blacklist based on that. Arbiters only get work if they continue to rule for corporations. The corporation knows which arguments worked for it in the past with arbiters, but the judgements are secret and the human cannot research as a corporation can. Arbitration is a bia…

That's all beside the point.

No, that's all material to the point. It's the same type of thing that led to most IP cases being heard in a particular Circuit/District Court in Texas.

When you as the consumer have nil input into establishing an impartial venue, and the COMPANY has an ongoing business relationship with the Arbiter on which the Arbiter depends it completely undermines the integrity of the proceedings. It's like asking your Mother in Law to preside over divorce proceedings.

How is this so hard to understand?

If a company can force you into that regime, and has all the bargaining power in the transaction, you are not at the table as equals. You are cattle. You are meant to consume and remain silent. Any complaints will be ignored in the order they are received.

You can say that IDEALLY the Arbitration company runs arbitration for many other companies, so is an impartial body in this case. Losing this ONE business wouldn't hurt right?

Except their bills ARE PAID by your opponent. You don't bite the hand that feeds. It's why the public justice system "works". If arbitration is so effective, it should be integrated into the public justice system and funded accordingly. Otherwise, it's your Civil Rights being discarded by corporate contract lawyers.

Re: ‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game

#320

Post by microtherion »

salawat wrote: post #319
jasonlotito wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all beside the point.

No, that's all material to the point. It's the same type of thing that led to most IP cases being heard in a particular Circuit/District Court in Texas. When you as the consumer have nil input into establishing an impartial venue, and the COMPANY has an ongoing business relationship with the Arbiter on which the Arbiter depends it completely undermines the integrity of the proceedings. It's like asking your Mother in…

> It's like asking your Mother in Law to preside over divorce proceedings.

That's a classic, I'll have to remember that.

Post reply on HN