Back in 2012, developer Roberts Space Industries (RSI) launched a Kickstarter asking for money to fund Star Citizen—an ambitious space game in the mold of Wing Commander. It's 2018, and while parts of the game are playable in various forms, it's far from achieving what it set out to accomplish. So far, it's collected more than $200 million in funding from fans eager to play it.
Ken Lord was one of those fans, and an early backer of Star Citizen. He's got a Golden Ticket, a mark on his account that singles him out as an early member of the community. In April of 2013, Lord pledged $4,496 to the project. Five years later, the game still isn't out, and Lord wants his money back. RSI wouldn't refund it, so Lord took the developer to small-claims court in California.
It's a simple case of an investor who's upset he didn't get his money back, isn't it?
Related Stories
'Star Citizen' Reaches $200 Million in Funding
Dedicated Star Citizen fans have pushed the game's crowdfunding revenue to a new milestone with the game now having raised over $200,000,000.
Currently playable in an alpha version that's available after purchasing one of the various game packs, the most common starter packs totaling around $45, Star Citizen and its developer and publisher Cloud Imperium Games have been raising money for the game for several years. According to the live stats for Star Citizen's crowdfunding progress, the game has raised $200,024,490 at the time of publishing with exactly 2,121,588 "Star Citizens" contributing to the game. That equates to just over $94 spent on the game per person.
[...] Star Citizen is currently in development and has a playable alpha with no official release date announced for the full game.
It'll come out of Beta around the $1 billion mark.
Also at Wccftech.
Previously: Star Citizen Reaches $100 Million in Crowdfunding, Alpha 2.0 Released
Star Citizen Developers Sued by Crytek
Star Citizen Begins Selling a $27,000 DLC Pack
'Star Citizen' Court Documents Reveal the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200 Million Game (the story was updated with a correction stating that the actual number was a little over $190 million)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ledow on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:47PM (13 children)
If you have $4,496 to waste on a game, you have enough to get a proper lawyer when suing for that back, not walk into court unfamiliar with legal process and how to argue that kind of case.
That's probably enough money to buy every game I've ever owned in my entire life, and I'm quite a gamer.
To waste that amount on a "pre-order" or anything even approaching crowdfunding, for a single product is a significant risk.
And what did you get over someone who paid the minimum? Junk and a gold star and no game.
I've backed a number of things , I was an ED backer. Boy, was that a waste of money. I've literally not played it since the 2nd/3rd day I got it. And they fulfilled all their promises. But I only lost a pittance of my gaming "pocket money" each month. I honestly can't imagine dropping that amount of money on ANYTHING with checking heavily first, and certainly not for a single video game.
People are insane.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:00PM (2 children)
Where is the profit in hiring a lawyer over a matter of $4,500? Unless you know you can get punitive damages, you are better off saying goodbye to that money (or continuing to wait for your overpriced DLC game).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:27PM (1 child)
Small claims court?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:25PM
That's exactly where he went. But GP had said:
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:37PM (3 children)
All the legal arguments CIG applied to Ken Lord apply to me, another Concierge level, Golden Ticket holding, Original Backer, but other than a cursory push-back from support I had no issues getting a full refund of my pledges including those made after the introduction of the arbitration clause, but not of my few years of subscriptions which I think is fair enough since they delivered everything they promised on those. IIRC, a total of six emails were sent back and forth (two of which were to confirm the refund payment details) and done. I don't have MS, but I did make all the other arguments he did; all the change of scope, that the game was no longer what I backed for, etc. The only real difference seems to be that I cited an EU consumer protection law (CIG has two EU offices, so they're bound by this) that, in my IANAL reading, seems to have CIG bang to rites on all refund requests made by EU residents provided that they are made within six years of the original pledge and CIG have not yet delivered what was advertised - and given all the changes in scope, I don't see how they can possibly *ever* meet the latter requirement. No actual threats of court action; just evidence I'd looked into my rights and they caved in immediately. Just stronger EU consumer legislation FTW, perhaps?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:58PM (1 child)
Or maybe he posted a negative review of the game (so far) somewhere? #hahaonlyserious
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Thursday July 19 2018, @04:18PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @10:43PM
They recently didn't offer refund anymore, though I'm not sure about the order of event on this one.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:41PM
Elite: Dangerous?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday July 19 2018, @04:40PM
> I was an ED backer.
There's a blue pill for that, and it ain't $4496
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:20PM (3 children)
Didn't they promise an offline single player mode? Their complete abandonment of such a feature was enough to convince me to never get that game.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:36PM (2 children)
Are you thinking of Squadron 42?
I remember when they mentioned they had all these big names a couple years back. There's footage of Gillian Anderson doing some motion capture, and I suppose Admiral Bishop's (Gary Oldman) speech in the UEE senate is worth a watch. News about SQ42 has really gone dark since. afaik, it's still a thing.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:51PM (1 child)
Not heard of that. ED = Elite Dangerous
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:53PM
Ah, my bad.
(Score: 2) by Revek on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:47PM
A finisher. He is great at concept but the only reason any of those other games were ever released was due to the fact he wasn't the boss. He dragged out freelancer and wing commander. Surely he has a board at that company. They need to sideline him and put somebody in charge who can decided something is good enough.
Don't call me Shirley.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:03PM (3 children)
When will people learn. It's an INVESTMENT. Don't put in more than you can afford to lose. Walk away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @11:01PM
No, dummy, it is not an investment. You are never getting that money back. Nor is it a gamble, because you are never going to win anything.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by qzm on Thursday July 19 2018, @11:37PM (1 child)
No. Its not an investment idiot.
An investment has a return proportional to the success of the project.
It is an unsecured preorder of an unknown product, at best.
Calling it an investment, unless they are offering an ownership share, is just pathetic rationalisation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 20 2018, @04:45PM
Which is why crowdfunding sites are freaking out about the new German law that makes preorders on products without firm delivery dates illegal. This would make almost all crowdfunding illegal, unless they are offering actual investments or have a firm delivery date under the law.
And next time someone states kickstarter is an investment, quote their own rules page: "Investment is not permitted on Kickstarter. Projects can't offer incentives like equity, revenue sharing, or investment opportunities." And indiegogo has similar rules. In order to actually invest in a company like that, you'd have to go through a brokerage like microventures, wefunder, or crowdfunder and you'll notice that they have a gigantic disclaimer on every page and the ones on the campaign pages are even longer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:41PM (2 children)
For something like this there's always a chance it'll become a Duke Nukem Forever.
And parts of it are playable, so it's not really one of those kickstarter scams or "idiots who don't know it's impossible with current technology trying to get money from likeminded idiots".
Thing is I don't know why anyone would throw so much money at the project - does he get shares/stocks?
Throw too much money at a team and they might spend more time on hookers and blow than working on the game...
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:50PM (1 child)
Aka the Mozilla Paradox.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 20 2018, @09:36AM
If only the people at Mozilla had spent that money on hookers and blow, instead on spending it on destroying what once was a great browser …
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:03PM (9 children)
Was the investor somehow defrauded? Where was the deliberate deceit? And, "we're trying to build a game but weren't as successful as we'd liked," isn't fraud if they wrote the proposal correctly on Kickstarter.
From their Kickstarter site [kickstarter.com]:
If you invest, and anything on Kickstarter is basically an investment, and you lose you're out of luck unless you can prove that willful misrepresentation of concealment was part of the process. That above paragraph, in my mind, gives RSI an out that the experience doesn't have to be whatever the remaining advertising is.
Maybe the person just hopes that RSI won't respond and therefore gets a default judgment.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:21PM (2 children)
The Kickstarter ended on Nov 19 2012. Lord pledged in April of 2013.
At some point that quote stops applying.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday July 20 2018, @02:30PM
No, it doesn't.
They promised to work on a project and do the best job they could. They promised that the product may not live up to all their other promises. They apparently have delivered a product that did not live up to those promises, and prima facie did not intentionally deceive. Not fraud.
If they hadn't delivered at all... many Kickstarters are smart enough to add one more sentence: "Due to unpredictable factors that may be beyond our control our intentions may not be realized, however, we are very committed to producing blah blah blah."
Put it another way: What tort, civil or criminal, do you think they are guilty of, and what's the basis for proof of it? Because from what I see it's not fraud and neglience would be a hard sell.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday July 20 2018, @02:35PM
And I think one might be able to raise a point that Kickstarter itself is an investment platform, albeit one that has novel benefits for those that choose to invest on projects that list on it. It's not a "store" where one buys finished goods. Nobody reasonable expects all investments to be successful or pan out. So this one didn't pan out. Tough on the investor who is disappointed in the product. But probably not actionable on those grounds alone.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by richtopia on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:54PM (5 children)
After reading the article I have to side with Lord. He pledged the development of a space simulator game. The game being delivered now requires FPS gameplay. The product has sufficiently changed that Lord's MS disables him from using the purchase.
Now, if Star Citizen's lawyers want to argue that the game will never be made, then it is a failed kickstarter and you are screwed. However, the product is still be being made so they should be accountable for delivering the product as advertised.
Lastly, the bullshit with the judge only looking at the current Terms of Service gets me. Lord agreed to the TOS at time of purchase. That is the TOS that should be used here, unless both parties agree to update the TOS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:32PM (1 child)
Most user agreements include a "subject to change with X days notice" clause specifically for this purpose. The user "agrees" automatically to whatever changes are made, unless the user employs some escape clause to revoke the agreement. (Said escape clause may not actually exist, and if it exists the procedure to invoke it is sure to be hidden in an undiscoverable segment of the company's website behind a sign saying "Beware of the Leopard" or some such.)
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @11:21PM
That sort of cap won't hold up in a court of law for serious term changes
by reading this message you agree to give me your first born child to be sacrificed in the name of Sek and I can alter this agreement at any time
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @10:17PM
I'm confident he made the purchase when his MS allowed him to play the current game. Otherwise, he woudln't have been around to complain about it now.
Which likely had one of those "terms may change" clauses meaning only the current TOS applies.
(Score: 3, Informative) by loonycyborg on Thursday July 19 2018, @10:39PM
TOS is an example of a contract of adhesion. There are legal limits on what sorts of clauses from them can be enforceable, and I think limitations on possible conflict resolution should be one of unenforceable ones.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday July 20 2018, @02:53PM
You may side with him. I'm sympathetic, slightly, to him. But failure to deliver an advertised product only applies to an investor if the investor has promised certain specifications absolutely and has no out clause. "But depending on the funding levels reached, we may have to limit the experience for the initially released game version." The experience won't necessarily be as promised. That's their out. Sucks, but maybe the investor should have asked for more specific promises, in writing, before investing any considerable sum.
Also, a reasonable investor might expect that a produced product does not necessarily match the initial specifications. Whether the current product was an apple when they were promised an orange, or an Apple when the were promised a PC, or an Apple when they were promised a rocket car may be a matter for a court. It's arguable, but it doesn't automatically hold up that they don't have it.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @11:10PM
I am not surprised that this game is a hot mess. Chris Roberts has been promising a massive game SINCE Wing Commander II. This is basically the 4th (or is it 5th) iteration of privater. Each one more ambitious than the previous one. Also *way* under delivering on that hype. I was of the mindset I would buy a copy when it was done. This thing is very pretty but low on gameplay. It is turning into the next Duke Nukem Forever. I learned what he was in the Strike Commander era. Another game that was 2 years late. He will deliver something eventually. It will not be anywhere close to the hype. Heck it probably will be an enjoyable game. So long as you go in with fairly low expectations. His games are decent but do not hold your breath on them being done any time soon.
Now for the guy who dumped 4k into a non-existant game. Seriously? Why would you do that? You then expected to get it back? They *spent* it already on the lawyers sitting across from you. They did not want you to get anything back so they would not have a run on the bank.
(Score: 1) by garrulus on Friday July 20 2018, @01:12PM
Star Citizen is a (be it somewhat arcadelike) space simulator , similar to Elite Dangerous.
It has enough sim/game play to satisfy lower amount donors imo.