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

321–330 of 335 posts

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

#321

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

sullyj3 wrote: post #298
gwbas1c wrote: post #251

> But games change during development and, according to Lord, Star Citizen changed a lot. According to the game’s original pitch on Kickstarter, it would be a space sim with a co-op multiplayer game, an offline single-player experience, and a persistent universe. It’s since become a massively multiplayer online game and a separate single-player game with first-person shooter elements called Squadron 42, which RSI ori…

What's the difference between a persistent universe and an MMO?

Persistence universe just means the game world and any changes done in it still exist (and possibly continue to be simulated) even when you log off. There's no true end to the game.

MMO means massively multiplayer online. Hundreds, thousands, or more in a single world.

While the two are often hand-in-hand, they don't have to be. A persistent universe that is only open to you and 4 friends wouldn't be an MMO.

SimCity 2013 is often described as an MMO, but I would argue it really isn't, since each region you play has a maximum of 1 player per city in the region (though 1 player can play multiple cities), which each region having only a few cities, and each region is completely independent of other regions. Effectively, each region is its own universe instance played by 1-16 players. Players can make their regions public, allowing cities to be claimed by any other player in the world, but claims are permanent until the player chooses to release their claim.

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

#322

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

gmueckl wrote: post #165
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only successful but also great in terms of quality and polish - iirc they got awards for their great sound design. I've also tried it in VR and it's a killer app for that platform, especially with a joystick setup.

The sound design in Elite: Dangerous is just fantastic. In my book it's among the best games ever in this category. It takes skill to take a simulation to a level where you can literally fly the ship by ear because every nuance of your ship's quite complex status is reflected in audio somehow.

I think I need better speakers, or maybe I should be wearing headphones, because I didn't feel this at all.

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

#323

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

andypants wrote: post #171
cornholio wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to double check this story to believe it: it's almost better than ICOs. They started with a $500.000 goal then stretched it to $2 million. For the last 6 years, they have been living off the nearly 400x more money that continued to come in, exceeding all expectations or previous games. All while delivering essentially only nice art and, we now learn, slimy legal tricks against the fans no longer willing to bank…

You can check their funding amounts here: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals They're still making 40k-70k per day

....they've raised $190m from 2m people. That means the average donation was about $95.

That's just insane.

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

#324

Post by CryptoPunk »

acdha wrote: post #315
CryptoPunk wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No options are being removed. The range of possible contracts that two consenting parties can enter into is larger when arbitration clauses are not illegal.

>>Being forced to use a company’s appeals process

No one is being "forced to use a company's appeals process". You choose to accept a company's offer, and agree to the terms, when you sign a contract with them. Given you're not entitled to use their service, and are free to not use it, you are not being forced into anything.

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

#325

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

the_snooze wrote: post #104
deadbunny wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why should I be the one exposed to uncertainty when there are plenty of other complete and patched games out there vying for my attention? Because sometimes if you don't fund an idea that idea doesn't happen. Of course I'm not suggesting you jizz $4500 into a promise of a game like the guy in the article but throwing ten or twenty bucks behind an idea you wan't to see happen isn't always a bad idea. If it happens a…

$10 won't make or break a game's development. It'll happen (or not) with or without my tiny advance payment. I'd rather hold on to that $10 and buy an actual game now instead of gambling on the promise of one in the future. As consumers, it's not our responsibility to support other people's open-ended projects. Let developers (and their actual publishers and investors) take on the risks themselves. It's better that w…

Your logic is the same logic used when people try give excuses for not voting. "My one vote won't matter".

No single drop of water believes it is to be blamed for the flood.

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

#326

Post by Mayzie »

krageon wrote: post #313
spyder wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Archive.org has a copy from the 2013 terms of service: https://web.archive.org/web/20131017050205/https://robertssp...

It has an arbitration clause.

Also, are these statements legal in America?

* "YOU UNDERSTAND AND HEREBY AGREE THAT YOU HEREBY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO SUE IN COURT AND HAVE A JURY TRIAL."

* "To the fullest extent permitted by law, (1) no arbitration shall be joined with any other; (2) there is no right or authority for any Dispute to be arbitrated on a class-action basis or to utilize class action procedures"

* "Any arbitration shall be initiated in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. Any Dispute not subject to arbitration, or where no election to arbitrate has been made, shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America, and you and RSI agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of that court."

So waiving your right to the judicial system, waiving your right to enter into a class action suit, and enforcing a particular jurisdiction location? Seems very anti-consumer and not fair at all.

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

#327

Post by h1d »

lykr0n wrote: post #11

I've dumped about a grand into Star Citizen over the course of 4 years. I've followed updates and developments with mild interest, and ever once and a while I jump back into it to see what's changed. It's always amazing to see the progress they have made, wither it be the engine tech or just the game play. Do I think it will come out in the next year or two? No, but I think it will. Development is on going and active…

> Development is on going and active.

It's sad someone has to emphasize this. Too bad too much money just makes people lose focus. Maybe the game is out there if they only had $10m.

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

#328

Post by g-b-r »

krageon wrote: post #312
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Where does that come from?

Yes, a few rights are better protected then in the US (at least if you haven't written the EULA in the right way), but I'm pretty sure they are generally legal and enforced.

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

#329

Post by g-b-r »

sandworm101 wrote: post #271
daburninatorrr wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is especially important, and I don't see anyone else here (at the moment of posting this) calling this out. This is a disastrous precedent to set for consumers, because it means that even though you are agreeing to terms on the date of the sale, those same terms of the sale can be changed on a moments notice and still affect you, without your knowledge or consent. It's a shame that he has to keep fighting this,…

Read the actual case, not the review of it. I suspect the judge is relying upon the fact that the money was not paid in one lump sum. It is reasonable to believe that later payment constituted an acceptance of those new agreements, that they should apply to past monies too.

> that they should apply to past monies too

That's not reasonable

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

#330

Post by g-b-r »

rwallace wrote: post #255
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you make a new purchase, you agree to the updated terms of service. This is pretty standard practice. (Steam makes you press a renewed terms of service agreement on every purchase, for example.) When you agree to updated terms, it generally replaces your prior agreement with a company. Had he not agreed to the new terms, his account and the purchases tied to it would still be under the old terms. The whole EULA/…

> The idea that someone could make 61 different purchases over a span of years, and then go back and think that they are entitled to refunds for all of them is a little crazy. There is an important distinction to be made. I agree that he should not be entitled to change his mind about wanting a refund, years down the line. But a corporation should not be entitled to unilaterally declare itself a sovereign entity, whe…

> I agree that he should not be entitled to change his mind about wanting a refund, years down the line.

That's not a refund years after one received a product, it's years after he was promised a product that he has not yet received!

The fact that they gave him prototypes of the product in the meanwhile has little relevance (altough if those "prototypes" were explicitly mentioned as part of what you would get in exchange of the funding, they could be regarded as a partial delivery and their assessed value ought to be discounted from the refund).

But I really don't even know the Kickstarter terms, I'm just speculating...

Post reply on HN