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

281–290 of 335 posts

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

#281

Post by kevin_b_er »

jasonlotito wrote: post #170
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…

> 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 biased loss for a human up against a corporation in mandatory binding arbitration via a contract of adhesion.

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

#282

Post by pzxc »

DannyBee wrote: post #249
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?

You have to agree to the retroactivity and the new changes. The argument here is that he did when he made a ton of new pledges under the new agreement.

That's not true, because the new TOS plainly states that it does not apply to transactions made before the new TOS went into effect.

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

#283

Post by jessaustin »

pzxc wrote: post #282
DannyBee wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to agree to the retroactivity and the new changes. The argument here is that he did when he made a ton of new pledges under the new agreement.

That's not true, because the new TOS plainly states that it does not apply to transactions made before the new TOS went into effect.

Even if the judiciary comes to its senses about the earlier purchaces, it's still a bait-and-switch for the later purchases. They can't claim that these were commodity purchases. Having spent a sum on one game, the next decision about where to spend on games is not a symmetric one.

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

#284

Post by jkchu »

JTbane wrote: post #70
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…

> Do I think I've gotten $1k of enjoyment from the game back when I was playing it? Yes. Not trying to be negative, but this sounds like rationalization. There are better games for much less money.

I know a lot people that spend money of things that I would personally not "waste" money on. But if they feel their money is well spent on those things, who am I to judge?

> There are better games for much less money.

That's your opinion only, and honestly isn't a very relevant statement. I've spent much more than $1k on Magic: the Gathering and even though I probably could have spent that money elsewhere and still been just as happy or more happy - it doesn't mean that I regret spending that money.

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

#285

Post by NelsonMinar »

ramblerman wrote: post #19

I was 25 when I backed this game. Not only am I hugely disappointed in the waterfall approach, and feature creep that pushed this over the edge. But I am 33 today! My desire to play MMOs has also slowly evaporated.

At least you don't have a degenerative muscular disease, wondering if you get to actually play the game before your body gives out.

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

#286

Post by jkchu »

ectospheno wrote: post #250
learc83 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how crowdfunding works though. You aren't selling a product, you're asking for money to cover the production expenses for a product. That often includes a salary for the creators, but it's hard to justify a multi-million dollar profit (from the crowdfunding itself).

I think the point he was trying to make is that they had no obligation to make crowdfunding work like people expected it to. They were perfectly within their rights to just ship on time and bag the rest as profit.

I agree that it is well within their rights to do that. But I also feel that this is a reason why large software products are not inherently a great fit for the Kickstarter model. I think Steam's "early-access" model is a much more intuitive fit for both the developers and the consumers of these games.

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

#287

Post by kemonocode »

> It's also worth noting that we're in a cultural moment in which the relationship between fans and creators is becoming more toxic. Star Wars fans who don't like The Last Jedi are demanding to remake the movie to fit their expectations. Trolls think the new She-Ra cartoon doesn't fit their highly specific conception of what is "feminine." Creators, of course, should be free to create what they want without fearing a mob. That's how we got the things that people are fans of in the first place, and RSI should be free to make Star Citizen what it wants. That being said, it's no wonder that Star Citizen fans feel like they have some degree of ownership over what it should be, seeing as how so many of them invested thousands of dollars in funding its development.

Kindly fuck off, Motherboard. This modern trend of forced arbitration clauses and IP owners, not just creators, getting their panties in a bunch because turns out they're not perfect and their fans can be very opinionated has to end. It's not "toxic," it's people who don't want to see their memories being violated to make a quick buck, or promises being blatantly broken over and over again.

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

#288

Post by beaconstudios »

nightski wrote: post #144
beaconstudios wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's because many early access developers don't put enough focus on the "Viable" aspect, and focus too hard on "Minimum". For a game to be viable it should express its core gameplay features in a compelling way. Iteration should just be building additional content on top of that, or building new modules that live on top of the core (like the FPS aspects of Star Citizen arguably should be).

True but I'd say it's that minimum and viable are much closer to the final product with games making the whole notion less useful.

that is very true, but with a huge game like Star Citizen you could likely strip out a huge share of the intended final-cut content and still have a quality and complete product.

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

#289

Post by TimTheTinker »

gpderetta wrote: post #265
dragonwriter wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Correct me if I’m wrong, but a group of doctors could form an organization that forces its patients into binding arbitration for disputes while still being contracted to the NHS. Could they? I thought the doctor's contract is with the NHS on standard government terms, and the patients are dealing with the NHS terms, the doctors have no direct contract with the patients or ability to impose legal terms on the patien…

Also European consumer protection laws make it very hard to enforce binding arbitration clauses in contracts.

I wish it were this way in the US. Way to nullify habeas corpus... :-(
Post reply on HN