Star Citizen Drama

[FunkyMike]

 

Actually Derek is mentioned once, in a quote by Chris. of course that quote alone gives me more respect for Derek than Chris, so there's that. 

 

I would think that this guy just has it out for Chris.

All the info that I saw indicates that this Derek guy is a constant source of controversy and trolling stretching a few decades. There was something about the guy trolling Chris Roberts when he was making one of his original games.

Roberts has games and a good hollywood movie under his belt..... and balls ; )

[Melfster]

I don't understand why people are so impatient.  This is normal game development.  If people realize this was going to be an ambitious when it first was announced they stupid.  Will it meet dead lines.. I do think so. But that is to be expected.  I expect it to take another 2 years before game is moderately completed state.   I expect the first part of Squadron 42 to be completed in around 9 months.

[+Asmodai MVC]

 

I would think that this guy just has it out for Chris.

All the info that I saw indicates that this Derek guy is a constant source of controversy and trolling stretching a few decades. There was something about the guy trolling Chris Roberts when he was making one of his original games.

Roberts has games and a good hollywood movie under his belt..... and balls ; )

Again the article isn't by Derek Smart nor is he a source for it.  Derek Smart wasn't in the original version at all and is only in it now because when it was updated to include the response from Chris a quote where Chris brings him up was added.  CHRIS wants this to be all about Derek exactly because Derek is a known troll and if he can convince everyone it's about Derek they'll just dismiss it out of hand.  Now you can certainly argue that the author may not have even investigated the issue had Derek not made his allegations and you'd have a strong case but the author found actual current and prior developers on the project and the article is based off of what THEY said not Derek.  If you want to dismiss the article that's fine, you can certainly believe all the employees are lying if you like but it's not about Derek Smart. (I'm sure he's glad everyone thinks everything's about him though)

As for Roberts games and Hollywood movies his Hollywood career is pretty much universally seen as a failure so lets not pretend he had success there.  Wing Commander was not a successful movie.  He hasn't released a game since Starlancer in 2000.  The last game he did work on was Freelancer... a game he initially said would be launching in 2000 but when 2000 came he admitted it was massively over budget and at least 18 months from release (sound familiar?).  So he sold Digital Anvil to Microsoft (the publisher) and bailed for Hollywood.  Microsoft massively cut back the features of the game and redeveloped it to what it is today... the stripped down version launched in 2003, three years later and with less features than the original vision.  I'm not trying to put the guy down, I backed the project and am still hoping it succeeds even if that looks doubtful now.  He obviously had success in games with the Wing Commander but he also has games failures too, doesn't have any recent successes, and certainly doesn't have "a good Hollywood movie" unless by "good" you just mean personally liked it.  According to the Wikipedia it had a $30 million dollar budget and made about $11.5 million at the box office... less than half what it cost to make.  It's also got the amazing score of 10% on Rotten Tomatoes.  I don't see how that could be "good" by any metric other than your own personal taste.

 

[+Asmodai MVC]

I don't understand why people are so impatient.  This is normal game development.  If people realize this was going to be an ambitious when it first was announced they stupid.  Will it meet dead lines.. I do think so. But that is to be expected.  I expect it to take another 2 years before game is moderately completed state.   I expect the first part of Squadron 42 to be completed in around 9 months.

People are impatient because they paid for it already.  It's one thing if games get delayed if they don't charge your credit card until they ship or if you're just hoping they come out and you haven't paid at all. (Half-Life 3)  They provided an estimated release date, and sure things slip and that's not a hard limit but they had in their own terms of service if they missed it by more than 12 months then you could get a refund and they'd perform an audit to show where the money went.  Well the estimated release date was Nov. 2014 so their time is up in a month and not even they are claiming they'll have what was promised in the kickstarter by then.  Instead AFTER they missed the Nov. 2014 date they changed their terms of service to be 18 months.  The whole audit thing was their own idea from their own terms of service and now their upset someone is actually trying to hold them to it.

Additionally there are rumors the money is running out, if you gave them money it's not unreasonable to want to know how they spent it.  There are rumors Chris gave himself and his wife (who has no game experience at all) 7 figure salaries.  There are rumors he bought a house with the crowdsourced money (personally I think it more likely this ties back to that last one... he gave himself and his wife an extravagant salary and then bought the house with that...).  No one knows for sure of course because the books are private but since their own terms of service said they'd to an audit at 12 months late it looks like it's time to find out.  It's illegal to use kickstarter funds for things not directly related to the project.

[Melfster]

There are also rumors that the author of the story fabricated the whole story so we don't know what's going on.   They have almost 100 million and they have no debt.  If they do run out money they could sell out to larger company or get external investor or get loan to finish the game.  I think people making a big deal out nothing.

[HawkMan]

There are also rumors that the author of the story fabricated the whole story so we don't know what's going on.   They have almost 100 million and they have no debt.  If they do run out money they could sell out to larger company or get external investor or get loan to finish the game.  I think people making a big deal out nothing.

At this point it's to late to sell out. no one is gong to dump millions into a game that is already sold and been paid for by the majority of players. sure there are a few people like me who are waiting to pay until the product exist, but we're relatively few and not worth the investment. 

So that means if it fails, there's only one option. The company crashes and goes bankrupt. another company buys up the license and code and hires a proper project manager who can set limits for the vision and get development on track. and then the game will be sold to everyone as they have no obligation to backers. They might to something honorable and offer backers 50% off or a bunch of in game money along with access to all the ships or something. At this point in time, this seems like the most likely outcome unfortunately. 

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

 

People are impatient because they paid for it already.  It's one thing if games get delayed if they don't charge your credit card until they ship or if you're just hoping they come out and you haven't paid at all. (Half-Life 3)  They provided an estimated release date, and sure things slip and that's not a hard limit but they had in their own terms of service if they missed it by more than 12 months then you could get a refund and they'd perform an audit to show where the money went.  Well the estimated release date was Nov. 2014 so their time is up in a month and not even they are claiming they'll have what was promised in the kickstarter by then.  Instead AFTER they missed the Nov. 2014 date they changed their terms of service to be 18 months.  The whole audit thing was their own idea from their own terms of service and now their upset someone is actually trying to hold them to it.

Additionally there are rumors the money is running out, if you gave them money it's not unreasonable to want to know how they spent it.  There are rumors Chris gave himself and his wife (who has no game experience at all) 7 figure salaries.  There are rumors he bought a house with the crowdsourced money (personally I think it more likely this ties back to that last one... he gave himself and his wife an extravagant salary and then bought the house with that...).  No one knows for sure of course because the books are private but since their own terms of service said they'd to an audit at 12 months late it looks like it's time to find out.  It's illegal to use kickstarter funds for things not directly related to the project.

That's the risk of crowdfunding. You give them your money in the hopes that they'll get it right away and use it to build the game you want. 

I read similar rumours. There's no way to know for sure so I won't believe it unless Chris Roberts admits to it. It feels as though things were blown out of proportion. There's no way to verify the facts on either side at the moment until Chris and/or his team speak up. Now that they have, I think it's best to move on and hope that the final game is what we've wanted since the 2012 announcement. 

Anyway, they made $2,134,374 on Kickstarter which is $1,634,374 more than their original $500,000 goal. That pales in comparison to what they've made on the game's website (currently at $89,950,662).

[FunkyMike]

 

Again the article isn't by Derek Smart nor is he a source for it.  Derek Smart wasn't in the original version at all and is only in it now because when it was updated to include the response from Chris a quote where Chris brings him up was added.  CHRIS wants this to be all about Derek exactly because Derek is a known troll and if he can convince everyone it's about Derek they'll just dismiss it out of hand.  Now you can certainly argue that the author may not have even investigated the issue had Derek not made his allegations and you'd have a strong case but the author found actual current and prior developers on the project and the article is based off of what THEY said not Derek.  If you want to dismiss the article that's fine, you can certainly believe all the employees are lying if you like but it's not about Derek Smart. (I'm sure he's glad everyone thinks everything's about him though)

As for Roberts games and Hollywood movies his Hollywood career is pretty much universally seen as a failure so lets not pretend he had success there.  Wing Commander was not a successful movie.  He hasn't released a game since Starlancer in 2000.  The last game he did work on was Freelancer... a game he initially said would be launching in 2000 but when 2000 came he admitted it was massively over budget and at least 18 months from release (sound familiar?).  So he sold Digital Anvil to Microsoft (the publisher) and bailed for Hollywood.  Microsoft massively cut back the features of the game and redeveloped it to what it is today... the stripped down version launched in 2003, three years later and with less features than the original vision.  I'm not trying to put the guy down, I backed the project and am still hoping it succeeds even if that looks doubtful now.  He obviously had success in games with the Wing Commander but he also has games failures too, doesn't have any recent successes, and certainly doesn't have "a good Hollywood movie" unless by "good" you just mean personally liked it.  According to the Wikipedia it had a $30 million dollar budget and made about $11.5 million at the box office... less than half what it cost to make.  It's also got the amazing score of 10% on Rotten Tomatoes.  I don't see how that could be "good" by any metric other than your own personal taste.

 

So LIZZY FINNEGAN and Derek working together is a story made up by Chris Roberts? This was in the article btw. In Chris Roberts original response he makes a very strong case against Lizzy and Derek. Should that be written off?

I don't know about you but I loved Lord of War.. never really cared for any of his other movies.

Regardless ... He has still accomplished more than your average Joe. It takes balls to get things done.

Simply put this article is just another provocation. And a very low one at that.

They started harassing his kids and his wife for christ sake. I don't know who resorts to such tactics...

[theyarecomingforyou]

Actually Derek is mentioned once, in a quote by Chris. of course that quote alone gives me more respect for Derek than Chris, so there's that. 

You have respect for the man that doxed Chris Roberts' family, posting personal information about his wife and children? Despicable. Derek Smart is a professional troll.

As for the article on The Escapist, it's a pathetic excuse for journalism. Most of the 'sources' were anonymous comments from Glassdoor, while many unsubstantiated claims were posted without any attempt to reach for comment (e.g. claiming that Sandi Gardiner is racist). Many of the allegations made in the article directly mirror those made by Derek Smart and the letter from Chris Roberts highlights some of the questionable activities of the journalists involved.

Here's a quote from an editor at Kotaku about the article:

Yeah, we've been hearing from and talking to various current and former employees at CIG for a while now. I've spent a ton of time editing and working with others on the team and we've published a couple of things so far. Part of our job is to determine what's relevant, concrete information that's actually worth reporting and what's just gossip from employees who are angry for one reason or another.

FWIW, this is one of the most disgusting pieces of reporting I've ever seen, and I'm legit shocked that any professional website would publish something like "It was also claimed that Gardiner used race as a determining factor in selecting employees, allegedly once saying 'We aren't hiring her. We aren't hiring a black girl'" without crystal-clear sourcing and evidence (and without giving the person in question a chance to defend herself).

What's really ironic is that the Escapist article's author is a huge figure of GamerGate, a movement about ethics in journalism.

Source: NeoGAF

[+Asmodai MVC]

That's the risk of crowdfunding. You give them your money in the hopes that they'll get it right away and use it to build the game you want. 

I read similar rumours. There's no way to know for sure so I won't believe it unless Chris Roberts admits to it. It feels as though things were blown out of proportion. There's no way to verify the facts on either side at the moment until Chris and/or his team speak up. Now that they have, I think it's best to move on and hope that the final game is what we've wanted since the 2012 announcement. 

Anyway, they made $2,134,374 on Kickstarter which is $1,634,374 more than their original $500,000 goal. That pales in comparison to what they've made on the game's website (currently at $89,950,662).

No, that's NOT the risk of crowdfunding.  On kickstarter specifically the company is legally required to provide the rewards offered in their pledge.  Now they didn't actually even have to offer the game.  The rewards could have been all swag, planets in the game named after them, ships designed by the backers, etc. but they DID offer the game and so they are legally required to provide it.  The risk of kickstarter is that you back a game before it's made and you might not like it.  The risk of kickstarter is that maybe the company does fail at making it but if they can't make what was promised they're required by law to refund your money.  They either make the game the backers paid for, refund the backers money, or declare bankruptcy or otherwise fold the company if unable to pay their legal debts (the refunds).

Chris claims the company isn't about to go bankrupt, great! I hope that's true. Then they should have the money to refund the kickstarters for any who ask (and who knows, maybe most people won't even want it because they like the radically increased scope).  As you point out the kickstarter was only $2 million of what's almost $90 million in funding at this point (and still taking money) so unless they've burned through everything already (which is claimed but you likely don't believe because Chris won't admit it himself) that should be no problem to refund (plus not every backer wants a refund, I know I don't but mine was only $5 from kickstarter, the rest was through their site directly.)  It can be argued that the game they're making now isn't even the game they promised in the kickstarter anymore.  Kickstarter doesn't care what happened after the campaign.  Kickstarter backers are owed what was promised in Kickstarter NOT something 10x bigger.  If it's bigger THAT's GREAT but you can't delay the game that was promised (and paid for) to make that happen.  The scope of the game has changed radically since the kickstarter ended (due to the extra $80+ million in funding) but that doesn't matter to his legal obligation to kickstarter backers.

Furthermore kickstarter requires all funds raised the in kickstarter to be spent on what was promised in the kickstarter, including the project itself and the backer rewards.  I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure you can't do a successful $1 million kickstarter and then give yourself a $2 million salary, work on it for 6 months, and then say "Sorry, the money ran out." and move on.  I'm also not sure of the legalities of hiring your spouse with no experience at all in the industry and giving them an extravagant salary as well.  If those things actually did happen, and I don't know they did, then I suspect laws were broken.  I KNOW laws were broken if they used kickstarter funds to film movie projects and such not promised in the kickstarter.

Also there IS a way to know for sure.  It's called an audit.  It was actually promised by Chris himself if the project was over 12 months late in the original terms of service and that 12 months is next month. "I won't believe it unless Chris Roberts admits it" is an absurd position to take.  He's been accused of actual crimes.  How many people in prison don't admit they committed the crime they're in for.  I don't think an audit, one he promised himself, to see where the money has gone and how much is left is too much to ask.  I hope it does show that nothing's been done wrong.

[+Asmodai MVC]

 

So LIZZY FINNEGAN and Derek working together is a story made up by Chris Roberts? This was in the article btw. In Chris Roberts original response he makes a very strong case against Lizzy and Derek. Should that be written off?

I don't know about you but I loved Lord of War.. never really cared for any of his other movies.

Regardless ... He has still accomplished more than your average Joe. It takes balls to get things done.

Simply put this article is just another provocation. And a very low one at that.

They started harassing his kids and his wife for christ sake. I don't know who resorts to such tactics...

I think "working together" is a bit of a stretch.  So according to you if there is a conflict between party A and party B and a journalist decides to look into it.  If they find their own sources in party A and report what they find that's completely invalidated by the fact that they talked to Party B and that person's a troll?  That's absurd, reporters regularly talk to even convicted criminals for their side of the story, nothing in the original article was even from Derek Smart the quotes were all from people she found who either worked or were working for Chris Roberts.  Now you can certainly argue that you think the sources in party A are disgruntled employees and are lying to the reporter because they have an axe to grind.  You can even argue that there are no sources from party A at all and the reporter made it all up.  Those are certainly things Chris would like you to do.  Saying the story isn't true because the reporter talked to Derek Smart makes no sense at all though no matter how big of a troll Derek Smart is.

Lord of War was more Andrew Niccol's movie the Chris Roberts but he did work on it as one of 3 producers.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Here's Forbes reporting on the Escapist article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/10/01/report-star-citizen-is-almost-out-of-cash-and-chris-roberts-insatiable-ambition-is-to-blame/

Apparently they think it's solid enough to repeat.  I guess Forbes is a bunch of trolls too or at least the author Jason Evangelho.

I'd like to quote two of the updates at the end of the article:

UPDATE 2: An army of Star Citizen fans have predictably started attacking me for writing this article. Bear in mind that I'm simply reporting on a report, and liberally using words like "allegations" and "claims." However, many of you seem content to discard these allegations as false simply because Roberts says they're false, which is more disturbing than any claims contained in this article.

 

UPDATE 3: It has been revealed that some -- certainly not all -- of the quotes contained in The Escapist's article were taken from Glassdoor Australia, a website that allows anonymous reviews of employers. The concern here is that these individuals couldn't have been verified as current or former employees. At least not via Glassdoor which doesn't have an employee verification process. However, The Escapist (via author Lizzy Finnegan) says that all individuals interviewed for their article were vetted through their legal department. It's not a stretch that these employees reached out to during the same window of time that they posted their negative reviews. In my opinion, the burden of proof simply isn't on The Escapist at this point. You don't have to take the comments and allegations as fact, obviously, but I find no reason to believe this was some elaborate fabrication, either. 

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

 

No, that's NOT the risk of crowdfunding.  On kickstarter specifically the company is legally required to provide the rewards offered in their pledge.  Now they didn't actually even have to offer the game.  The rewards could have been all swag, planets in the game named after them, ships designed by the backers, etc. but they DID offer the game and so they are legally required to provide it.  The risk of kickstarter is that you back a game before it's made and you might not like it.  The risk of kickstarter is that maybe the company does fail at making it but if they can't make what was promised they're required by law to refund your money.  They either make the game the backers paid for, refund the backers money, or declare bankruptcy or otherwise fold the company if unable to pay their legal debts (the refunds).

Chris claims the company isn't about to go bankrupt, great! I hope that's true. Then they should have the money to refund the kickstarters for any who ask (and who knows, maybe most people won't even want it because they like the radically increased scope).  As you point out the kickstarter was only $2 million of what's almost $90 million in funding at this point (and still taking money) so unless they've burned through everything already (which is claimed but you likely don't believe because Chris won't admit it himself) that should be no problem to refund (plus not every backer wants a refund, I know I don't but mine was only $5 from kickstarter, the rest was through their site directly.)  It can be argued that the game they're making now isn't even the game they promised in the kickstarter anymore.  Kickstarter doesn't care what happened after the campaign.  Kickstarter backers are owed what was promised in Kickstarter NOT something 10x bigger.  If it's bigger THAT's GREAT but you can't delay the game that was promised (and paid for) to make that happen.  The scope of the game has changed radically since the kickstarter ended (due to the extra $80+ million in funding) but that doesn't matter to his legal obligation to kickstarter backers.

Furthermore kickstarter requires all funds raised the in kickstarter to be spent on what was promised in the kickstarter, including the project itself and the backer rewards.  I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure you can't do a successful $1 million kickstarter and then give yourself a $2 million salary, work on it for 6 months, and then say "Sorry, the money ran out." and move on.  I'm also not sure of the legalities of hiring your spouse with no experience at all in the industry and giving them an extravagant salary as well.  If those things actually did happen, and I don't know they did, then I suspect laws were broken.  I KNOW laws were broken if they used kickstarter funds to film movie projects and such not promised in the kickstarter.

Also there IS a way to know for sure.  It's called an audit.  It was actually promised by Chris himself if the project was over 12 months late in the original terms of service and that 12 months is next month. "I won't believe it unless Chris Roberts admits it" is an absurd position to take.  He's been accused of actual crimes.  How many people in prison don't admit they committed the crime they're in for.  I don't think an audit, one he promised himself, to see where the money has gone and how much is left is too much to ask.  I hope it does show that nothing's been done wrong.

I wasn't talking about Kickstarter when I mentioned the risk of crowdfunding. I was talking about the game's website where the vast majority of crowdfunding money went through. Kickstarter has its own set of rules regarding creators, completing projects and fulfilling rewards. And so does Cloud Imperium Games. The difference is, Kickstarter holds creators accountable with the threat of legal action taken by backers. That's why it's a lot safer to go through Kickstarter than a website with different rules. Also, where did you get the 12-month figure from?

This is from CIG's Terms of Service:

• RSI agrees to use its good faith business efforts to deliver to you the pledge items and the Game on or before the estimated delivery date communicated to you on the Website.  However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a firm promise and may be extended by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time. Accordingly, you agree that any unearned portion of your Pledge shall not be refundable until and unless RSI has failed to deliver the relevant pledge items and/or the Game to you within eighteen (18) months after the estimated delivery date.
• For the avoidance of doubt, following the Cancellation Period, in consideration of RSI’s good faith efforts to develop, produce, and deliver the Game with the funds raised, you agree that any Pledge amounts applied against the Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost shall be non-refundable regardless of whether or not RSI is able to complete and deliver the Game and/or the pledge items. In the unlikely event that RSI is not able to deliver the Game and/or the pledge items, RSI agrees to post an audited cost accounting on the Website to fully explain the use of the amounts paid for Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost.  In consideration of the promises by RSI here under, you agree that, following the Cancellation Period, you shall irrevocably waive any claim for refund of any Pledge that has been used for the Game Cost and Pledge Item Cost in accordance with the above.

The Cancellation Period mentioned above is 14 days from the date you make a pledge. Anyway, here's my takeaway:

• You can't request a refund until May 2016 which is 18 months after the game's initial estimated release date of November 2014.
• It's implied that an audit will be done if the game isn't released by May 2016. If there ever was a claim about it being 12 months, then it isn't in the Terms of Service.
• If your money was already spent, then your claim for a refund is waived. This can be shown in the audit results.

Assuming a worst-case scenario, backers of the game outside of Kickstarter are left in a pretty bad position. CIG likely has enough money to cover the cost of refunding Kickstarter backers but I don't think they're legally obligated to refund every backer on the game's website. They're only obligated to refund money that wasn't spent on the game. I'm not exactly sure if that's based on individual pledge items or exactly where your money was spent.

I wasn't aware of the audit promise in their ToS so that's why I said I'd only believe it if it came from Chris Roberts himself. I still have faith in Chris and his team. I don't think he'd be stupid enough to spend crowdfunding money on non-game related stuff after making such a promise. We'll have to wait and see.

[+Asmodai MVC]

 

I wasn't talking about Kickstarter when I mentioned the risk of crowdfunding. I was talking about the game's website where the vast majority of crowdfunding money went through. Kickstarter has its own set of rules regarding creators, completing projects and fulfilling rewards. And so does Cloud Imperium Games. The difference is, Kickstarter holds creators accountable with the threat of legal action taken by backers. That's why it's a lot safer to go through Kickstarter than a website with different rules. Also, where did you get the 12-month figure from?

This is from CIG's Terms of Service:

The Cancellation Period mentioned above is 14 days from the date you make a pledge. Anyway, here's my takeaway:

• You can't request a refund until May 2016 which is 18 months after the game's initial estimated release date of November 2014.
• It's implied that an audit will be done if the game isn't released by May 2016. If there ever was a claim about it being 12 months, then it isn't in the Terms of Service.
• If your money was already spent, then your claim for a refund is waived. This can be shown in the audit results.

Assuming a worst-case scenario, backers of the game outside of Kickstarter are left in a pretty bad position. CIG likely has enough money to cover the cost of refunding Kickstarter backers but I don't think they're legally obligated to refund every backer on the game's website. They're only obligated to refund money that wasn't spent on the game. I'm not exactly sure if that's based on individual pledge items or exactly where your money was spent.

I wasn't aware of the audit promise in their ToS so that's why I said I'd only believe it if it came from Chris Roberts himself. I still have faith in Chris and his team. I don't think he'd be stupid enough to spend crowdfunding money on non-game related stuff after making such a promise. We'll have to wait and see.

 

First, I'm ONLY talking about is the kickstarter pledges because that's the stronger case of the two.  I've made a point to draw that distinction several times.

Furthermore, as I stated, they changed their terms of service AFTER the original release date was missed.  The ToS you posted is the changed and current one but is irrelevant because the one in effect for kickstarter backers was the one present when the kickstarter ended.  It said 12 months from the estimated release date which for the kickstarter is Nov. 2014 so if they're not ready in May 2016 is it ok as far as you're concerned for them to bump it up to 24 months, what about 36, does what is says mean ANYTHING?  The ToS you linked is only valid for people who backed through their website AFTER the updated version was posted which is both after the kickstarter ended and after the original release date was missed.  This covers your first two bullet points.

The third point is what people are asking for.  They want the audit they were promised at 12 months to see where the money has gone and how much is left.  Even Derek Smart didn't actually want a refund, he's calling for an audit.  They just refunded him anyway to try and shut him up or possibly claim that he has no legal standing to sue since he's no longer a backer. (kickstarter does allow you to refund a backers money for any reason and thereby remove your obligation to them).  Additionally if you are a kickstarter backer your refund is NOT waived because it's already spent, they can't dodge the kickstarter legal requirements by just saying "unless we spent it".  MAYBE that will hold up for backers through their website but it's not going to cut it for kickstarter.

This whole thing would just go away if they just said something like: "You know what, the scope of this project has changed radically from the kickstarter.  If you backed the game in the kickstarter and you don't like the increased scope and/or longer development time we'll refund your kickstarter pledge and you can walk away.  We hope you'll stick with us and are as excited as we are about where this is going but we understand that no everyone is."

At worst they'd have to refund $2 million and that's assuming EVERYONE who backed the kickstarter even wanted a refund.  I know I don't.  What's $2 million when the project is closing in on $90 and climbing?

Alternately/Additionally they could provide the audit they promised at 12 months in the original ToS and prove once and for all that the money didn't go into buying a house, vacations, insane salaries, etc.

[theyarecomingforyou]

No, that's NOT the risk of crowdfunding.  On kickstarter specifically the company is legally required to provide the rewards offered in their pledge.  Now they didn't actually even have to offer the game.  The rewards could have been all swag, planets in the game named after them, ships designed by the backers, etc. but they DID offer the game and so they are legally required to provide it.  The risk of kickstarter is that you back a game before it's made and you might not like it.  The risk of kickstarter is that maybe the company does fail at making it but if they can't make what was promised they're required by law to refund your money.  They either make the game the backers paid for, refund the backers money, or declare bankruptcy or otherwise fold the company if unable to pay their legal debts (the refunds).

You don't seem to understand what Kickstarter is. Here's a quote from their website:

Creators are responsible for their projects. When you back a project, you're trusting the creator to do a good job, so if you don't know them personally or by reputation, do a little research first. Kickstarter doesn't evaluate a project's claims, resolve disputes, or offer refunds — backers decide what's worth funding and what's not.

Some projects won't go as planned. Even with a creator's best efforts, a project may not work out the way everyone hopes. Kickstarter creators have a remarkable track record, but nothing's guaranteed. Keep this in mind when you back a project.

In other words, the risk is taken by the backers. There may be other legal recourse that backers can take but Kickstarter itself doesn't provide any guarantees.

Chris claims the company isn't about to go bankrupt, great! I hope that's true. Then they should have the money to refund the kickstarters for any who ask (and who knows, maybe most people won't even want it because they like the radically increased scope).  As you point out the kickstarter was only $2 million of what's almost $90 million in funding at this point (and still taking money) so unless they've burned through everything already (which is claimed but you likely don't believe because Chris won't admit it himself) that should be no problem to refund (plus not every backer wants a refund, I know I don't but mine was only $5 from kickstarter, the rest was through their site directly.)  It can be argued that the game they're making now isn't even the game they promised in the kickstarter anymore.  Kickstarter doesn't care what happened after the campaign.  Kickstarter backers are owed what was promised in Kickstarter NOT something 10x bigger.  If it's bigger THAT's GREAT but you can't delay the game that was promised (and paid for) to make that happen.  The scope of the game has changed radically since the kickstarter ended (due to the extra $80+ million in funding) but that doesn't matter to his legal obligation to kickstarter backers.

Again, you don't understand how Kickstarter operates. A delay isn't a breach of Kickstarter's rules, nor should it be. Further, the game has expanded and is offering more than was originally planned. Are backers expected to pay more for that extra content? No.

Furthermore kickstarter requires all funds raised the in kickstarter to be spent on what was promised in the kickstarter, including the project itself and the backer rewards.  I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure you can't do a successful $1 million kickstarter and then give yourself a $2 million salary, work on it for 6 months, and then say "Sorry, the money ran out." and move on.  I'm also not sure of the legalities of hiring your spouse with no experience at all in the industry and giving them an extravagant salary as well.  If those things actually did happen, and I don't know they did, then I suspect laws were broken.  I KNOW laws were broken if they used kickstarter funds to film movie projects and such not promised in the kickstarter.

Even if you pay credence to the unsubstantiated allegations of large salaries it's patently obvious to anyone that more than two million dollars has gone into developing the game, meaning there is no resource for Kickstarter backers. Further, Kickstarter backers make a fraction of the total pledges - I don't know why you're obsessing over it.

Here's Forbes reporting on the Escapist article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/10/01/report-star-citizen-is-almost-out-of-cash-and-chris-roberts-insatiable-ambition-is-to-blame/

Apparently they think it's solid enough to repeat.  I guess Forbes is a bunch of trolls too or at least the author Jason Evangelho.

Repeating bad journalism doesn't make it valid. It doesn't offer anything new - it simply repeats the same allegations and has had to make numerous corrections. Forbes is the same organisation that published an attack piece against President Obama by Dinesh D'Souza, an extreme right-wing loon who has since been convicted on felony charges related to campaign finance fraud. That Forbes article is as disgraceful as the original article.

[+Asmodai MVC]

 

 

You don't seem to understand what Kickstarter is. Here's a quote from their website:

In other words, the risk is taken by the backers. There may be other legal recourse that backers can take but Kickstarter itself doesn't provide any guarantees.

 

Again, you don't understand how Kickstarter operates. A delay isn't a breach of Kickstarter's rules, nor should it be. Further, the game has expanded and is offering more than was originally planned. Are backers expected to pay more for that extra content? No.

 

Even if you pay credence to the unsubstantiated allegations of large salaries it's patently obvious to anyone that more than two million dollars has gone into developing the game, meaning there is no resource for Kickstarter backers. Further, Kickstarter backers make a fraction of the total pledges - I don't know why you're obsessing over it.

 

Repeating bad journalism doesn't make it valid. It doesn't offer anything new - it simply repeats the same allegations and has had to make numerous corrections. Forbes is the same organisation that published an attack piece against President Obama by Dinesh D'Souza, an extreme right-wing loon who has since been convicted on felony charges related to campaign finance fraud. That Forbes article is as disgraceful as the original article.

YOU don't seem to understand Kickstarter.  That quote you posted is just them saying they don't do the investigations for you and THEY are not responsible if a project commits fraud, etc... the project creator is. 

Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?

Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) We crafted these terms to create a legal requirement for creators to follow through on their projects, and to give backers a recourse if they don't. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.

 

Source (also Kickstarter)

A kickstarter is a legally binding agreement between the project creator and it's backers. If it fails it's up to the backers to sue the creator.  That quote you posted was just kickstarter saying don't sue them, sue the project creator.  Kickstarter isn't going to refund you money that some other company took.

Also AT NO POINT did I say delay was a breach, the whole 12 month thing came for Chris Roberts own terms of service (which he's since changed to 18).  In fact the launch dates are clearly labeled on kickstarter as "estimated".  The game Chris Roberts is making now is NOT the game the was pitched in the kickstarter though and everyone who backed it there doesn't necessarily buy into the new MUCH grander vision (personally I do but I can certainly see how others wouldn't and don't feel the need to attack them like others apparently do.)  Those people deserve their money back.  Also it's not valid to delay a game you promised because you're making a bigger game you didn't.  Furthermore the allegations of improper use of funds are valid because you can't use kickstarter funds for features, rewards, vacations, houses, etc. that weren't in the kickstarter campaign.  Asking for an audit given all the allegations doesn't seem like such a horrible thing to me.  ESPECIALLY since the whole idea of the audit if the game went over 12 months late was their own Terms of Service.

[theyarecomingforyou]

You clearly have an agenda against Chris Roberts and the game. You're just parroting the points raised by Derek Smart. Kickstarter specifically points out that not all projects succeed and that the risk is on backers. You admit yourself that the dates were estimated and the original Letter From The Chairman stated that there would likely be delays and changes along the way. Backers were asked along the way and voted overwhelmingly in favour of expanding the concept of the game.

I simply don't understand why you're focusing on such a small subset of backers (Kickstarter represents less than 3% of total pledges) and it seems more than coincidental that Derek Smart is pursuing the same agenda.

[+Asmodai MVC]

You clearly have an agenda against Chris Roberts and the game. You're just parroting the points raised by Derek Smart. Kickstarter specifically points out that not all projects succeed and that the risk is on backers. You admit yourself that the dates were estimated and the original Letter From The Chairman stated that there would likely be delays and changes along the way. Backers were asked along the way and voted overwhelmingly in favour of expanding the concept of the game.

I simply don't understand why you're focusing on such a small subset of backers (Kickstarter represents less than 3% of total pledges) and it seems more than coincidental that Derek Smart is pursuing the same agenda.

 

You clearly have an agenda to blindly follow the words of the prophet Chris Roberts.  You're just parroting his points and the points of his followers.  Of course kickstarters can fail, no one is disputing that.  There is risk involved but that risk is NOT that the developer can use the money however they want and release a product that's different from what was pitched.  The release date of November 2014 was an estimate, everyone agrees on that.  The fact that an audit and refunds are justified if that date was missed by more than 12 months was in RSI's own terms of service agreement.  So hitting the November 2015 release or performing an audit and offering refunds was NOT an estimate.  The original ToS noted there would likely be delays and changes along the way from the November 2014 but then assured backers that said delays wouldn't amount to more than 12 months or they'd get an accounting of how the money was spent and be offered refunds.  After missing that date he moved the goal posts and changed it to 18 months but that's not legal to do for anyone who pledged prior to that change (which is every kickstarter backer because the campaign was closed before the change happened)

As for backers voting who cares? If you have a kickstarter project and 100 people back it, then you do funding and get 10,000 people to fund you through your site, you can't just have the 10,000 people vote to change the game an absolve yourself from the legal responsibility to the 100 who backed it on kickstarter.  You can't change what was promised in a kickstarter after it's closed and the backers have been charged.  Even if you got 99 of the 100 people who backed the kickstarter to agree to change you STILL legally owe that 1 hold out the product you sold them.  Alternately you can just refund that person their money which relinquishes your obligation to them.

I simply don't understand how you so easily disregard the kickstarter backers.  So because a group is a small subset of the majority they have no rights?  They could be 0.00000000001% of the total pledges and RSI is still legally obligated to provide what they paid for or refund their money.  They paid for a game by Nov 2014 OR an audit of the project and refunds by Nov 2015 if the release date slipped that far.  Honoring the agreement RSI themselves wrote (the original ToS) shouldn't be so difficult for such a small subset.

[HawkMan]

You clearly have an agenda against Chris Roberts and the game. You're just parroting the points raised by Derek Smart. Kickstarter specifically points out that not all projects succeed and that the risk is on backers. You admit yourself that the dates were estimated and the original Letter From The Chairman stated that there would likely be delays and changes along the way. Backers were asked along the way and voted overwhelmingly in favour of expanding the concept of the game.

I simply don't understand why you're focusing on such a small subset of backers (Kickstarter represents less than 3% of total pledges) and it seems more than coincidental that Derek Smart is pursuing the same agenda.

Actually here are several kickstarter projects that have been the target of lawsuits and lost. kicstarter themselves won't do much but provide documentation. But you are legally required to provide the project, in certain cases a good faith attempt is acceptable, but it depends on the project and what is promised. 

[FunkyMike]

 

I think "working together" is a bit of a stretch.  So according to you if there is a conflict between party A and party B and a journalist decides to look into it.  If they find their own sources in party A and report what they find that's completely invalidated by the fact that they talked to Party B and that person's a troll?  That's absurd, reporters regularly talk to even convicted criminals for their side of the story, nothing in the original article was even from Derek Smart the quotes were all from people she found who either worked or were working for Chris Roberts.  Now you can certainly argue that you think the sources in party A are disgruntled employees and are lying to the reporter because they have an axe to grind.  You can even argue that there are no sources from party A at all and the reporter made it all up.  Those are certainly things Chris would like you to do.  Saying the story isn't true because the reporter talked to Derek Smart makes no sense at all though no matter how big of a troll Derek Smart is.

Lord of War was more Andrew Niccol's movie the Chris Roberts but he did work on it as one of 3 producers.

  

Let me get this straight. Five Ex employees decided it would be a good idea to suddenly all contact LIZZY FINNEGAN to tell their "story" after she publishes her first piece which was all based on Derek Smarts work ....Yer...

So in just 1 day after her original Derek Smart article.. she has already been contacted by 5 ex employees. Then by the 27th she has already spoken to 7-9 people who are part or used to be part of CIG.

The story itself sounds like it is totally blown out of proportion. Only a few points seem to come to shine. All which might be considered not earth shattering.

That section on Forbes is a reblogging / opinion sphere handled by volunteers / contributors . The people posting there are not part of the Forbes team. 

That Lizzy redhead must be good at what she does if 5 people decided to contact her all at the same time.

Chris Roberts wife and kids should not have been harassed. There are just certain things that you do not do.

[+Asmodai MVC]

  

Let me get this straight. Five Ex employees decided it would be a good idea to suddenly all contact LIZZY FINNEGAN to tell their "story" after she publishes her first piece which was all based on Derek Smarts work ....Yer...

So in just 1 day after her original Derek Smart article.. she has already been contacted by 5 ex employees. Then by the 27th she has already spoken to 7-9 people who are part or used to be part of CIG.

The story itself sounds like it is totally blown out of proportion. Only a few points seem to come to shine. All which might be considered not earth shattering.

That section on Forbes is a reblogging / opinion sphere handled by volunteers / contributors . The people posting there are not part of the Forbes team. 

That Lizzy redhead must be good at what she does if 5 people decided to contact her all at the same time.

Chris Roberts wife and kids should not have been harassed. There are just certain things that you do not do.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/14727-The-Escapist-Explains-Its-Star-Citizen-Sources-Vetting-and-Respo

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

 

First, I'm ONLY talking about is the kickstarter pledges because that's the stronger case of the two.  I've made a point to draw that distinction several times.

Furthermore, as I stated, they changed their terms of service AFTER the original release date was missed.  The ToS you posted is the changed and current one but is irrelevant because the one in effect for kickstarter backers was the one present when the kickstarter ended.  It said 12 months from the estimated release date which for the kickstarter is Nov. 2014 so if they're not ready in May 2016 is it ok as far as you're concerned for them to bump it up to 24 months, what about 36, does what is says mean ANYTHING?  The ToS you linked is only valid for people who backed through their website AFTER the updated version was posted which is both after the kickstarter ended and after the original release date was missed.  This covers your first two bullet points.

The third point is what people are asking for.  They want the audit they were promised at 12 months to see where the money has gone and how much is left.  Even Derek Smart didn't actually want a refund, he's calling for an audit.  They just refunded him anyway to try and shut him up or possibly claim that he has no legal standing to sue since he's no longer a backer. (kickstarter does allow you to refund a backers money for any reason and thereby remove your obligation to them).  Additionally if you are a kickstarter backer your refund is NOT waived because it's already spent, they can't dodge the kickstarter legal requirements by just saying "unless we spent it".  MAYBE that will hold up for backers through their website but it's not going to cut it for kickstarter.

This whole thing would just go away if they just said something like: "You know what, the scope of this project has changed radically from the kickstarter.  If you backed the game in the kickstarter and you don't like the increased scope and/or longer development time we'll refund your kickstarter pledge and you can walk away.  We hope you'll stick with us and are as excited as we are about where this is going but we understand that no everyone is."

At worst they'd have to refund $2 million and that's assuming EVERYONE who backed the kickstarter even wanted a refund.  I know I don't.  What's $2 million when the project is closing in on $90 and climbing?

Alternately/Additionally they could provide the audit they promised at 12 months in the original ToS and prove once and for all that the money didn't go into buying a house, vacations, insane salaries, etc.

Although Kickstarter accounts for less than 3% of the game's funding, I really hope they don't put RSI backers before them because of that alone. The Kickstarter page hasn't even been updated since April 2013 which makes sense. The game's website is a better place to deliver updates, content, etc.

I'm not really familiar with the legal consequences of not fulfilling backer rewards on Kickstarter. I just know that backers can take legal action but there's no guarantee that they'll be compensated if a creator doesn't fulfill their rewards or complete the project. The risk is always there and you can't complain to Kickstarter because they won't do anything about it. The good thing is, Kickstarter is reputable. If Chris Roberts and his team doesn't deliver, then it would seriously harm their image and his reputation.

As for the game's website, I noticed this in their Terms of Service:

These Terms of Service, together with any applicable End User Licensing Agreements(“EULA”), the RSI’s Privacy Policy (“Privacy Policy”), as any of the foregoing may be amended from time to time, together with any rules or instructions regarding a particular activity, poll, or other offering to the extent that they expressly modify these Terms of Service (all such terms hereafter collectively “RSI Terms”), govern your use of the Website, the participation in the game “Star Citizen” and related modules, including “Squadron 42” (collectively, the “Game”), and any other product, online service or web site (the Game, the Website, and any such other sites or services, individually and collectively “RSI Services”) offered by us. The RSI Terms may be amended form time to time with respect to operational and similar matter (e.g. code of conduct, gameplay etc.). We will notify you by email, via the Website or during log in of any amendments that are going to be made by us in advance of the such amendments taking effect and will invite you to accept our new RSI Terms. If you do not accept such new RSI Terms, you may no longer be able to access the RSI Services (or any part thereof).

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS OF THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, YOU MUST CLICK ON THE BUTTONTHAT INDICATES THAT YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ACCEPT THESE TERMS OF SERVICE AND/OR IMMEDIATELY CEASEUSING THE RSI SERVICES. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS OF THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, YOU MAYNOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE RSI SERVICES (OR ANY PART THEREOF).

If they're like most companies, then that was likely there in the first place. It's quite troubling to me because it seems like a loophole to get out of any promise they can't fulfill. We'll know for sure by next month though. If they do the audit, then we'll know that they have to stick with any promise they made in the past. If not, then this part of the ToS protects them. And I'm going to seriously reconsider giving them my money.

I still have faith in Chris Roberts and his team. I think he can deliver on his promises but with that said, I still want them to be as transparent as possible with how they've spent their funding. An audit can clear everything up.

[Zidane]

You clearly have an agenda against Chris Roberts and the game. You're just parroting the points raised by Derek Smart. Kickstarter specifically points out that not all projects succeed and that the risk is on backers. You admit yourself that the dates were estimated and the original Letter From The Chairman stated that there would likely be delays and changes along the way. Backers were asked along the way and voted overwhelmingly in favour of expanding the concept of the game.

I simply don't understand why you're focusing on such a small subset of backers (Kickstarter represents less than 3% of total pledges) and it seems more than coincidental that Derek Smart is pursuing the same agenda.

 

I'm an an outsider as one gets regarding Star Citizen (I've never even been to the site and barely know what its really about) but after reading this drama...if the backers were told that there would be an audit after 12 months than common sense says that if the company in question is stalling providing that audit and refunding people who "make a big deal of it" then they don't want you knowing what the money is really being used for. That much is obvious.

[FunkyMike]

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/14727-The-Escapist-Explains-Its-Star-Citizen-Sources-Vetting-and-Respo

My response from earlier took that information into account.

Here is an updated response from CIG https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14979-Chairmans-Response-To-The-Escapist

 

I sincerely hope that they sue.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I simply don't understand how you so easily disregard the kickstarter backers.  So because a group is a small subset of the majority they have no rights?  They could be 0.00000000001% of the total pledges and RSI is still legally obligated to provide what they paid for or refund their money.  They paid for a game by Nov 2014 OR an audit of the project and refunds by Nov 2015 if the release date slipped that far.  Honoring the agreement RSI themselves wrote (the original ToS) shouldn't be so difficult for such a small subset.

I'm one of the Kickstarter backers and have absolutely no idea why you're making such an arbitrary distinction, except for the fact it matches Derek Smart's campaign against the game. Everybody who has backed the game is in the same position. Look, we get it - the game has been delayed. However, it has also increased in scope and will surpass the original vision. Most games projects on Kickstarter have been delayed - Wasteland 2 (from October 2013 to September 2014), Broken Age (from October 2012 to April 2015), Godus (probably will never be completed), etc. Surprisingly enough games are difficult to make and Star Citizen is a much more ambitious project than any of those others. Delays were expected - Chris Roberts even stated back in 2012 that delays were likely.

Are there concerns about the game and its development? Absolutely, but The Escapist article is a pathetic excuse for journalism, with allegations printed without any evidence to support them or comment sought from the accused. The entire campaign against the game is being spearheaded by Derek Smart whose own games are guilty of much greater delays, cut features and bugs. He is simply using it as a platform to promote his own game and bolster his own ego. He is the Donald Trump of video game developers.

All an audit achieves is to give people like Derek Smart ammunition against the game, to pick apart every decision and use it to attack the game. Backers knew the risks going in and, despite the delay, the game looks extremely promising - it looks like it will deliver everything and more that was promised. I don't need to know how much was spent on accommodation, on salaries, on voice actors, events or marketing - I just want a decent game. I would only support an audit if it was limited to just a 'Yes, this project is financially sound' or 'No, this project is unsustainable'. Anything else would just fuel Derek Smart's vicious campaign against the game and make it more likely to fail, which isn't something any of the backers want.