SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(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.