Smart Community

Games => Star Citizen => Topic started by: dsmart on July 15, 2018, 06:15:49 AM

Title: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 15, 2018, 06:15:49 AM
Since more and more backers are taking steps to sue (they will all fail) CIG/RSI over their refunds, I think we need a new forum dedicated to those discussions.

Most of the refund fiasco plays out over on https://old.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds sub-Reddit.

Back in 2016, the first backer, Streetroller, who took his complaint to the CA authorities, got his $3K refund based on a fluke because he managed to get the attention of the CA authorities, who got in touch with CIG.

It also made the news cycle (http://www.pcinvasion.com/interview-streetroller-star-citizen-backer-got-2560-refund).

I wrote a blog (The Refund Debacle (http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/07/star-citizen-the-refund-debacle/)) about that.

This past April, he later tried to sue croberts in NJ. He failed and the case got thrown out (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=15.msg8345#msg8345).
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 15, 2018, 06:21:28 AM
This past June, another backer (a sick backer with MS) who was refused a refund, tried to sue CIG (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/8qj6hn/start_your_morning_right/) in CA.

CASE # 18SMSC01860
 
https://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/

Though he was warned that he simply couldn't get past the arbitration clause, he tried anyway. As was to be expected, he lost - and the judge kicked him to arbitration (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/8ynrel/i_lost_in_court/).

I wrote about his case in my latest Twitter thread (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1018111910598889472.html)

Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 15, 2018, 06:24:49 AM
OSC, who continues to irk both sides of the equation, weighs in on the latest loss

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/8ynrel/i_lost_in_court/e2egm9a/

Quote
That may be, but this was a frivolous waste of time and money.

- You didn't do the research
- You basically ignored what you signed and AGREED to
- You spent money filing a losing lawsuit
- You spent money paying for air fare, spent a whole day on an uncomfortable road trip

The time and money spent in above pursuits could have been spent on -:

- A free phone consultation with ANY lawyer. There are MANY websites where you could have got this - for FREE. Especially since the EULA and TOS are in the public domain for anyone to read and provide a legal interpretation. Hell, there is even a sub Reddit where attorneys hang out and do this sort of thing ALL THE TIME
- Spent about $150 getting an internet attorney (e.g. at www.upcounsel.com, www.findlaw.com or similar) to review the TOS and explain what you were faced with

Had you done the above, you would either have abandoned the attempt or gone directly to arbitration and took your chances there.

But just like the money you flushed down the toilet, you chose to flush even more money down the toilet by pursuing what many believe, and which you had to have suspected, was a waste of time and money.

You don't get any points. You didn't achieve anything. You failed.

In fact, you have caused more harm than good. How?

Because your attempt is now another notch that others can look at and think that CIG is basically within their rights to scam backers out of money. The reality is that going to arbitration - with a good attorney - stands a very good chance of people getting their money back. Reason being, even though arbitrations tend to rule in the favor of companies, an issue like crowd-funding is not the norm. As a result, an arbitrator, once presented with compelling evidence (which backers have in abundance) would better *see* how a company is ripping off customers under the guise of crowd-funding.

You win at arbitration. You make it public. And you set a precedent that opens the flood gates. And just like in the *Epic Systems Corp v Lewis* case DS cited this morning, backers can go to the same attorney and have them file their cases via multiple arbitrations (since they can't get class action lawsuits) using the same boilerplate complaint.

But who wants to spend $1,000 - $1,500 to arbitrate a refund that's less than that?
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 15, 2018, 09:12:36 AM
I wrote a short thread on the latest refund debacle

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1018514650231705602.html
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Meowz on July 15, 2018, 01:19:47 PM
the refunds Reddit in general is getting toxic, but that's probability because the ones still stuck are in the perpetual holding pattern. If this sparks them to go to arbitration then all the better.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 16, 2018, 04:06:26 AM
the refunds Reddit in general is getting toxic, but that's probability because the ones still stuck are in the perpetual holding pattern. If this sparks them to go to arbitration then all the better.

Yeah, we've been discussing that on Discord. The reason is that some of them are the same toxic ass-clowns who were previously on the flip-side of the farce.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: rwc117 on July 18, 2018, 01:14:24 PM
The question is, if you're a backer that read your articles and NEVER accepted a new TOS since v1.2 because playing a broken Beta was not worth the risk of losing the important verbage in that TOS...

...Do those backers have standing to get a refund from CIG?  Or are they in the same 'screwed' boat as the people who have been clicking and agreeing for the past 3 years?
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 18, 2018, 02:41:54 PM
The question is, if you're a backer that read your articles and NEVER accepted a new TOS since v1.2 because playing a broken Beta was not worth the risk of losing the important verbage in that TOS...

...Do those backers have standing to get a refund from CIG?  Or are they in the same 'screwed' boat as the people who have been clicking and agreeing for the past 3 years?

Unless they can prove that they didn't access the game after the Aug 2013 TOS, they're in the same boat.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: rwc117 on July 18, 2018, 03:02:31 PM
This might sound terribly ironic; is it possible to crowdfund an arbitrator?

That is: Find someone who has a TOS from a favorable perspective (pre 2.0)

Screen them to make sure they're not an idiot or a scammer.

Crowdfund a legal defense in order to go through arbitration.

THEN, everyone walks through the door opened up by the attorney, so that all other cases then use the original plaintiff as their boilerplate complaint.

In other words, the wording of the TOS is specifically designed to discourage class actions, but the principle remains - pooling of resources to file one "precedent" case in arbitration.  It's just ironic that you would be using crowdfunding, to help a crowd of people get their money back from some of the worst crowdfunders ever.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: helimoth on July 18, 2018, 03:04:54 PM
Derek has been right for several years now so anybody who previously did not request a refund in the full knowledge that Derek Smart was right; I have no sympathy for them should they not get their refund now (they won't)
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Meowz on July 18, 2018, 05:17:15 PM
Derek has been right for several years now so anybody who previously did not request a refund in the full knowledge that Derek Smart was right; I have no sympathy for them should they not get their refund now (they won't)

Assuming they knew with full range of opinions. I do have sympathy for anyone just now getting disgruntled and seeking out dissenting opinions. I got my refund shortly before 3.0 dropped because I believed Derek when he said they would stop refunds based off of CR's own words. However, before I got pissed at CIG I rarely ventured beyond the RSI website and was not a part of reddit. So you got a guy that his cult friend talks him into the game, skews the facts and history and he gets pumped like everyone else who got a refund only to find out a NO REFUNDS.

Now you could argue that there is enough negative press out there that something should have at least tipped him off to the fact that not all is well in CIG land, but no, I am not going to withdraw sympathy from people because they were "late to the refund party". The cultizens ya, fuck them, but the backer that got excited bought a cool, but expensive ship then finds out just what a shit show it really is after the refund door closed I do very much feel sorry for.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: vintologi.com on July 19, 2018, 07:33:07 AM
Obviously the grey market is the only viable option at this point, a lot of people wil have to take a loss at more than  70%. I feel bad for people than spended 1000$+ at this 'dream' (nightmare).
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: StanTheMan on July 20, 2018, 07:19:46 PM
Assuming they knew with full range of opinions. I do have sympathy for anyone just now getting disgruntled and seeking out dissenting opinions. I got my refund shortly before 3.0 dropped because I believed Derek when he said they would stop refunds based off of CR's own words. However, before I got pissed at CIG I rarely ventured beyond the RSI website and was not a part of reddit. So you got a guy that his cult friend talks him into the game, skews the facts and history and he gets pumped like everyone else who got a refund only to find out a NO REFUNDS.

Now you could argue that there is enough negative press out there that something should have at least tipped him off to the fact that not all is well in CIG land, but no, I am not going to withdraw sympathy from people because they were "late to the refund party". The cultizens ya, fuck them, but the backer that got excited bought a cool, but expensive ship then finds out just what a shit show it really is after the refund door closed I do very much feel sorry for.

come on...a kid sure but many Backers are well past their early adulthood and experience should inform them to put the brakes on sooner.   

Then there is doing due diligence.   Young people are in school/college etc and specifically doing (or should be doing) research on various topics on a regular basis.   We should expect them to apply these skills on their gaming hobby.

The guy also got a bit too butt hurt defensive too soon when OSK was telling him the truth - albeit without much empathy.   You have to be thicker skinned and more honest with yourself than that.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Aya Reiko on July 20, 2018, 11:01:30 PM
Even in defeat, I wonder if this situation will end up chipping away at CiG's reputation.

Then again, that would be like tossing a snowball into an avalanche at this point.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 21, 2018, 07:56:24 AM
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Backer42 on July 21, 2018, 03:26:56 PM
u
Assuming they knew with full range of opinions. I do have sympathy for anyone just now getting disgruntled and seeking out dissenting opinions. I got my refund shortly before 3.0 dropped because I believed Derek when he said they would stop refunds based off of CR's own words. However, before I got pissed at CIG I rarely ventured beyond the RSI website and was not a part of reddit. So you got a guy that his cult friend talks him into the game, skews the facts and history and he gets pumped like everyone else who got a refund only to find out a NO REFUNDS.

Now you could argue that there is enough negative press out there that something should have at least tipped him off to the fact that not all is well in CIG land, but no, I am not going to withdraw sympathy from people because they were "late to the refund party". The cultizens ya, fuck them, but the backer that got excited bought a cool, but expensive ship then finds out just what a shit show it really is after the refund door closed I do very much feel sorry for.
I only found out about refunds in 2015, because Chris Roberts published his "letter to the Escapist" on his own website and I decided to read it as a whole (which obviously nobody else except Derek did), then did some research on names I never heard of before. The so-called "game journalism" completely failed in properly inform me. Until then I executed a hands-off approach, so I didn't care much about what happened during development, except occasionally viewing the RSI forum and one or two videos per year.  If I had less time on my hands bothering with "that old Kickstarter" in 2015, I could have ended up in 2017 easily, also if I only had followed the fake news the media published about Star Citizen. (You notice, that these guys turn on Star Citizen now, not three years ago, in fact the Escapist article has been pulled.)

It wasn't until doing throughly research when I found out, that almost nobody of the original 2012/2013 team was around anymore and the entire concept has changed into something completely different. Until then I was assuming that Squadron 42 was on its track and has been delayed a bit. I'm still certain, that the supposed "backer polls" about scope changes never actually happened and have been retroactively faked to rectify what Chris Roberts wanted to do anyway. I didn't even know about those polls until 2015.

Just because someone reading daily in a forum thread behind a paywall is well informed doesn't mean everyone is. It was Chris Roberts himself, who directed me to the refund route, because nothing on the carefully filtered RSI forum pointed to the possibility of refunds and does not even today. Me getting in my refund early was happy accident. Also the whole ToS shenigans got completely past me. I never read them (thankfully EU law doesn't require me to forward every ToS document to my lawyer for investigation like the US does.)

Then there is doing due diligence.   Young people are in school/college etc and specifically doing (or should be doing) research on various topics on a regular basis.   We should expect them to apply these skills on their gaming hobby.
Actually consumers are not expected to do due diligence. That is the core of all modern age consumer protection laws, that the consumer doesn't have to employ full time specialists for background-checking every company he does business with. Instead the law skews the balance heavily towards the consumer, so companies employing people full time, who figure out how to rip off consumers, don't get the complete advantage over somebody who has a day job and might spend five to ten minutes per day with personal business decisions.

Gambling laws exist, so companies carefully crafting money traps (again with professional psychologists using their skills to harm people instead of healing them) don't get to ruin too many people's lives. (Lootboxes might become illegal in Europe.) That's I why refrain from dissing people who spent over $1000 on Star Citizen, that might have happened to me, if the stars had aligned a little bit differently. I'm also certain that many of those loud "fans" engaged in the reddits and every comment section are mostly just fakes by CIG to prevent the few actual backers to talk to each other unhindered. I'm not ready to throw everyone under the bus, just because shills pretending being backers make everyone who spent money on SC look like toxic haters.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: helimoth on July 21, 2018, 03:35:08 PM
...

you're acting like they are falling for some carefully orchestrated master plan. it became as clear as day years ago what was going on; this is a really bad con. and anyway this is laughing at people spending too much on a computer game when it's obvious the publisher of the game is going to mishandle it completely - not some cruelty. Derek Smart being right was the last straw; if they don't understand now then they deserve to make the lols richer by way of their losing funds to the exit scam.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Backer42 on July 21, 2018, 04:01:33 PM
you're acting like they are falling for some carefully orchestrated master plan.
Which it was from the beginning, as court documents now show. With proper information I would have never backed the Kickstarter.

The only reason I'm still involved following this to the end is to learn as much possible about my mistake, which under different conditions might have lost me a substantial amount of money.

Quote
it became as clear as day years ago what was going on; this is a really bad con. and anyway this is laughing at people spending too much on a computer game when it's obvious the publisher of the game is going to mishandle it completely - not some cruelty. Derek Smart being right was the last straw; if they don't understand now then they deserve to make the lols richer by way of their losing funds to the exit scam.
I think people happy about all this don't realize, that all these vocal "backers" are just as fake and smoke and mirrors as anything else CIG produced. That includes the ones trying to get a refund and failing to discourage real backers, which are very few (tens of thousands, not millions). Yes, I even consider that the small claims guy being just a another CIG mole who's duty was to behave as dumb as possible to create a court ruling in favor of CIG under controlled conditions.

You will notice that once CIG goes defunct, all these reddit and twitter "backers" will vanish over night - because most of them have never existed outside the Internet. Once someone pulls the plug on the comment section spam machine, it will go completely silent. Then and only then we might talk to some real backers, who missed their escape pod. These backers can't talk to each other in those public places, because the shill-to-backer-ratio is over 10:1 (just like the NPC-to-player ratio in SC  :grin: ).

You might just laughing at another Potemkin village built by CIG.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: DemonInvestor on July 21, 2018, 06:01:00 PM

Sorry but any analysis not looking into which parties are involved as it's first point and which contract they actually signed, is not worth anyones time.
We've seen different trade partners/intermediaries (kickstarter, then RSI Ltd. - anyone else?), and maybe even a whole corp of companies involved. All under changing terms of services - where one might argue about which is applicable for every contract. Not even mentioning that buyers have bought/pledged something from different countries - involving therefore different governmental authorities who might rule under different laws upon said case.
And reading aloud Service clauses to an audience, without going into the legality of said clauses is again wasted time. Or a lot of companies would (like SouthParks Apple) have a lot of "fun".

And even while i think that he's right about CIG not owning anyone anything - why should they when you seemingly pledge to RSI Ltd. through their Homepage ? - i still think his analysis has the lowest quality a legal analysis can have. Damn i've written better ones in the few courses i had in university.

Again i'm happy that i never bought into SC and therefore the whole thing is really just a hobbyistic interest if my prescience stays true and they never deliver what they promised and how legalities look in such cases.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 22, 2018, 01:39:29 PM
It's all nonsense. The reality is that the remaining backers enabled CIG to scam them out of their money. Now that it's obvious refunds have ended, they're all suddenly acting shocked. It's almost as if they weren't paying attention all these years that I have been blowing the alarm. Especially over this ToS fiasco that I KNEW was coming - and said so.

Notice how, following this court case, the Shillizens are out in force making videos about how it's totally not a scam, CIG isn't a bank etc. While Shitizens are rejoicing that CIG did this.

Those ass-clowns saying that CIG isn't a bank, and that you should get a refund within 14 days, are conveniently ignoring the fact that legacy backers who were MISLED into thinking a game was coming, no longer have that 14 day option.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Backer42 on July 22, 2018, 04:21:22 PM
The reality is that the remaining backers enabled CIG to scam them out of their money. Now that it's obvious refunds have ended, they're all suddenly acting shocked. It's almost as if they weren't paying attention all these years that I have been blowing the alarm. Especially over this ToS fiasco that I KNEW was coming - and said so.
I think you're overestimating the reach of your messages. I think half of the people, who spent money on CIG still don't know that refunds were a thing.

Quote
Notice how, following this court case, the Shillizens are out in force making videos about how it's totally not a scam, CIG isn't a bank etc. While Shitizens are rejoicing that CIG did this.
Yes, and I don't rule out the possibility, that this court case has been created and lost intentionally and all those shills pretending to be backers are just part of smoke and mirrors. We don't make videos, just because we were Star Citizen backers. But people producing videos on Star Citizen exclusively are highly suspicious. I don't think any of those ever spent money on CIG, it's more likely, that they are part of the scam machine and collect reimbursement from CIG. So in that case they would be not backers at all, they just pretend to be to encourage others to spend money on CIG. It's viral marketing 101.

It's all about making it look bigger than it is to rectify spending large amounts of money. Nobody would spend $ 100 to 1000 on DLC on a project one tenth of the size of Star Citizen. SC as a whole is a big fat fake.

That's why my bet is on once the thing implodes there will be almost nobody left to laugh at, because thousands over thousands of shills will immediately disappear into the void, because they never existed as Star Citizen backers in the first place. Except the few poor souls at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/comments.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Bubba on July 22, 2018, 05:29:57 PM
This case was definitely not manufactured. If it were, it would have been thrown out with prejudice. Yes, when it implodes, there will be screaming. Some will loudly blame Dr. Smart, the media, CryTek, and anyone but CR.
But the shifting tide has already reduced their numbers. I think Dr. Smart is right on his observation that, by courting and promoting toxic fans in the "good days", they've developed a cadre of haters for the "bad days"

Those who will go after the sleazebags who made these empty promises built on shady business arrangements (assuming for a minute that is the case) will have to have some smarts about them, and therefore have already set their wheels on motion.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Penny579 on July 22, 2018, 10:57:56 PM
in first principles, I think no one should get a refund.

You kickstart a project, you trust someone to give your project a red hot go.   You don't get to ask for a refund because the project is failing, late or the person you have supported turns out incompetent.  Neither are you entitled to a refund when your own personal circle stances change, loss of faith, going broke, got sick whatever.  It's not sale its a reward for help financing a project.

I think its a bit lame to be running off now looking for some consumer protection.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Penny579 on July 22, 2018, 11:41:27 PM
That being said,

They pre-sold SQ42 and advertised it as coming out in 2015, they did not say will attempt to make a game in 2015, there is high a risk of the product not being delivered.  They did not indicate if that more funding would delay delivery with the project being forever remade to 'higher' standards.  Even now you can get to the checkout on their store page right now and the only warning you that this product is not almost in your hands is  "! Squadron 42 is currently under development" in small faded font.

CIG have to face up they pre-sold a product, counted it as revenue paid tax on it and got loans against it, but did not deliver the product. Only through miraculous and dubious legal measures have they managed to avoid this bitting them on the ass, well at least in the US. 

forgetting the law It's morally bankrupt to pitch an updated version of wing commander, use that funding and half a decade on somewhat related FPS / MMO and then deny refunds to people who are complaining the money they pledged is being used on a completely different project.

Yet still CIG almost seam injured and shocked anyone would want their money back.  They claim its tiny minority of people wanting a refund yet gone to huge lengths to deny refunds.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Motto on July 23, 2018, 01:31:45 AM
I disagree. When somebody asks me to sponsor him for something new, like building a game, and he specifically states what kind of game and promises full financial disclosure, I expect him to honour that. After giving him that money, I learn he's not building / able to build the game he sold me, he doesn't provide financial disclosure and it turns out he's honouring himself and close relatives huge salaries. Fine, but can I have my money back please? That was not our deal.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 23, 2018, 03:54:32 AM
This case was definitely not manufactured. If it were, it would have been thrown out with prejudice. Yes, when it implodes, there will be screaming. Some will loudly blame Dr. Smart, the media, CryTek, and anyone but CR.
But the shifting tide has already reduced their numbers. I think Dr. Smart is right on his observation that, by courting and promoting toxic fans in the "good days", they've developed a cadre of haters for the "bad days"

Those who will go after the sleazebags who made these empty promises built on shady business arrangements (assuming for a minute that is the case) will have to have some smarts about them, and therefore have already set their wheels on motion.

Yeah. And that's what is going on atm. Most of the toxic "fans" from the old days who have finally come to their senses are the ones now being toxic from the other side of the fence. It's amazing.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 23, 2018, 03:57:16 AM
in first principles, I think no one should get a refund.

You kickstart a project, you trust someone to give your project a red hot go.   You don't get to ask for a refund because the project is failing, late or the person you have supported turns out incompetent.  Neither are you entitled to a refund when your own personal circle stances change, loss of faith, going broke, got sick whatever.  It's not sale its a reward for help financing a project.

I think its a bit lame to be running off now looking for some consumer protection.

True. Except for the fact that :

1) The project had a specific release date; which came and went

2) Numerous times, the govt has said that if you take crowd-funded money and made promises, you should keep them

3) Crowd-funding a video game isn't early access. It's a promise to deliver a product by a date certain

Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 23, 2018, 03:57:59 AM
I disagree. When somebody asks me to sponsor him for something new, like building a game, and he specifically states what kind of game and promises full financial disclosure, I expect him to honour that. After giving him that money, I learn he's not building / able to build the game he sold me, he doesn't provide financial disclosure and it turns out he's honouring himself and close relatives huge salaries. Fine, but can I have my money back please? That was not our deal.

Exactly. And the makings of a scam started the minute they started walking back those very same promises via TOS changes.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: N0mad on July 23, 2018, 04:29:26 AM
I disagree. When somebody asks me to sponsor him for something new, like building a game, and he specifically states what kind of game and promises full financial disclosure, I expect him to honour that. After giving him that money, I learn he's not building / able to build the game he sold me, he doesn't provide financial disclosure and it turns out he's honouring himself and close relatives huge salaries. Fine, but can I have my money back please? That was not our deal.

All of this is obvious but I keep having to remind myself about the big picture here: it's that all this, all the criticism, the haters, the scam accusations, all the bad PR; would all go away if CIG released the game as promised.  Or, I would even accept a fully featured and fully playable reduce version of the full game, maybe just as a single player game  (you'd think CR would have learnt that from the Freelancer game).

All they have released is a broken tech demo. Rather than make steady progress on the Core tech (networking / physics) and gameplay features, they have a slow development of extraneous features: ships / armour / clothes / graphical updates / art assets. There's a reason for this though: the core tech is hard and having come so far with an unsuitable engine already they can't make it work without breaking everything they've already made, so it's much easier to show progress by doing the easy stuff, and the easy stuff is often visual so they have something to show off.

The day they knew that it wasn't possible to get the technology to work, but instead decided to pretend they could rather than being honest and downsizing their ambitions, was the day it became a scam. That's why Derek's first blog about how it couldn't be made as originally promised angered Chris Roberts so much: it's because Chris knew Derek was right.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: helimoth on July 23, 2018, 06:35:28 AM
The only thing that is stopping the whole house of cards from tumbling down at this point is the fact that CIG haven't had to, yet, open up the books. The moment the backers are produced that smoking gun - the CIG finances - then the majority will accept the project is doomed and will want to try recoup whatever cash is left.

I think one of the most ironic things about this entire litany of errors that has come to be known as the development of Star Citizen is how this all started as an experiment in to how well could a studio unhampered by restraints imposed by a publisher produce an AAA game and how open and transparent such a studio could be and yet has turned in to the showcasing of one of the least transparent, most inefficient studios in recent history.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 23, 2018, 07:05:31 AM
The day they knew that it wasn't possible to get the technology to work, but instead decided to pretend they could rather than being honest and downsizing their ambitions, was the day it became a scam. That's why Derek's first blog about how it couldn't be made as originally promised angered Chris Roberts so much: it's because Chris knew Derek was right.

Yup. Then they gave the one guy who didn't need/want a refund - a refund :emot-lol:

Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 23, 2018, 07:07:37 AM
The only thing that is stopping the whole house of cards from tumbling down at this point is the fact that CIG haven't had to, yet, open up the books. The moment the backers are produced that smoking gun - the CIG finances - then the majority will accept the project is doomed

Yes. That's why CIG freaked out when Crytek filed their discovery motion.

Quote
and will want to try recoup whatever cash is left.

They won't get ANY money. CIG already sent out that message loud and clear with this recent $4,500 lawsuit fiasco.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Penny579 on July 23, 2018, 11:22:06 PM
To a guy is like who has MS, his argument is they have gone so far from the original pitch he physically cannot play or enjoy the game cig are now promising to develop.  all he wanted was 20 mission with drop-in co-op play so his friends could carry him through the game for 4.5k.  So glad Chirs was here to save PC gaming show the industry how great a developer could be!

I am not from the US, your legal system amazes me a little, but I have read from multiple sources online that this drastic revision of the terms and conditions is perfectly legal.   Are the ToS considered a contract?  how on earth is it all reasonable to completely re-write the terms, without providing some consideration?

Take the finical accountability, Chris made multiple representations about the money raised going to the game and being accountable for it if he did not deliver, this key point induced many people to back the game, it was also in the ToS. Imagine you backed 10k based on this fact.  You log into to see how progress is going and you forced to click a checkbox, in which the contract is re-written stripping the key rights to accountability, and in return, you get the privilege of maintaining the access to a broken, unfinished product you already had?  not only is there no consideration it's deceptive, misleading and unconscionable.   It reminds me of the south park episode where Apple put in there ToS that they could force you into a human centipeade.

Still i think people have to accept they kickstarted a product and it failed miserably.  Just because other people are dumb enough to ignore this and keep pouring funding into it doesn't change that fact, it just rubs salt in the wounds they still have enough money to keep failing, after all, they also paid so are entitled to long depressing wait watching

Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 24, 2018, 05:13:52 AM
To a guy is like who has MS, his argument is they have gone so far from the original pitch he physically cannot play or enjoy the game cig are now promising to develop.  all he wanted was 20 mission with drop-in co-op play so his friends could carry him through the game for 4.5k.  So glad Chirs was here to save PC gaming show the industry how great a developer could be!

I have deliberately refrained from talking about his illness because it's not even relevant to his refund. You could die tomorrow, and still NOT be entitled to a refund. Point is, that excuse is pure BS. If you have MS, you can play very few games. And a flight sim, fps or similar games which rely on twitch reaction, aren't going to be one of them. CIG hasn't changed the focus of the game to any extent whereby all of a sudden it was OK for a person with MS in 2013, but not in 2018. So I don't believe his bs. I think he's just using his illness as an excuse to garner sympathy and stoke the outrage culture we're currently enduring.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: David-2 on July 24, 2018, 05:45:51 AM
Seems like CIG could have avoided a lot of trouble by merely saying, from the beginning, that the maximum refund ever under any circumstances was $60 (the typical price of a top-notch new release PC game) and that all your other "pledges" (pre-purchases, donations, whatever) went directly to the development cost of the BDSSE (or whatever it was at any given time) and though you'd be allocated special ships or whatever as a result of your "pledge" none of it would be refundable ever.

Personally I feel that anybody at all at any time whatsoever who put in more than $120 (the price of a top-notch PC game plus its first expansion pack) was a fool, and, therefore, was separated from his money in the usual way.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Penny579 on July 24, 2018, 06:28:24 PM
$1000 on game is kind of shocking, but if you love it and are getting value from it what ever fine.

$1000 on game that is not even released, being developed by what appears to be a very incompetent / shady developer .... begs the question where has the sanity gone.

Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: jwh1701 on July 24, 2018, 07:19:47 PM
$1000 on game is kind of shocking, but if you love it and are getting value from it what ever fine.

$1000 on game that is not even released, being developed by what appears to be a very incompetent / shady developer .... begs the question where has the sanity gone.

I play defiance still and we have a person who has spent over 30k on loot boxes and he has even showed us the screen shots.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Penny579 on July 24, 2018, 10:51:47 PM
I have deliberately refrained from talking about his illness because it's not even relevant to his refund. You could die tomorrow, and still NOT be entitled to a refund. Point is, that excuse is pure BS. If you have MS, you can play very few games. And a flight sim, fps or similar games which rely on twitch reaction, aren't going to be one of them. CIG hasn't changed the focus of the game to any extent whereby all of a sudden it was OK for a person with MS in 2013, but not in 2018. So I don't believe his bs. I think he's just using his illness as an excuse to garner sympathy and stoke the outrage culture we're currently enduring.

I understand the reluctance to bring up anyone's personal issues. However i think we can make an exception as he has been open about his condition and it is relevant in this case. His reason for backing star citizen revolved around being able to enjoy single player styled adventure, where the co-op would allow him to be carried through the game as he would struggle and not enjoy doing this by himself with his condition.  CIG have since dropped the singleplayer campaign with co-op.  He was presold X, X is no longer going to be made, he wants a refund.

You can not pre-sell a car, turn around after a half a decade say you have not finished the car because you are now making a boat and also cry foul because your land locked customers who never wanted a boat are trying to get there money back.   

I know it's not clear cut like this as I think he continued backing the game after CIG indicated this feature was going to be dropped. In his defence, CIG also do a terrible job of announcing and feature downgrades.

on the same principle, I think early backers who wanted wing commander 2014 also have every right to ask for a refund.  The vertical slice did not show glorious space battles vs cats and ship customisation. More than half of it was terrible fps, stealth gameplay and puzzels solving all of which had nothing to do with wing commander.  They paid for wing commanders successor not theif in space.

bottom line is dont spent 4.5k on a jpeg unless its master works you want to hang above the dining room table.
 
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: helimoth on July 25, 2018, 02:30:52 AM
As an old Monster Hunter fan, I logged in to check Defiance out. Not really my thing to play solo but with a group of friends I can see where the fun is. Difference between SC and Defiance though is Defiance has an existing game loop where you can do things and actually play and it and most importantly people are enjoying it. You can recommend it to your friends and they might not like the game but they aren't going to be mad you recommended to badass game to play together. Recommended SC to your friends? There's a good chance they will be very annoyed at you for suggesting they buy it.

I guess it's similar to the age old solution of knowing if a girl/guy is really "the one" by whether you would introduce them to your parents. The same is true before something can be classed as a proper game; would you introduce the game to your friends and encourage them to buy it?
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: StanTheMan on July 25, 2018, 05:35:27 AM
As an old Monster Hunter fan, I logged in to check Defiance out. Not really my thing to play solo but with a group of friends I can see where the fun is. Difference between SC and Defiance though is Defiance has an existing game loop where you can do things and actually play and it and most importantly people are enjoying it. You can recommend it to your friends and they might not like the game but they aren't going to be mad you recommended to badass game to play together. Recommended SC to your friends? There's a good chance they will be very annoyed at you for suggesting they buy it.

I guess it's similar to the age old solution of knowing if a girl/guy is really "the one" by whether you would introduce them to your parents. The same is true before something can be classed as a proper game; would you introduce the game to your friends and encourage them to buy it?

It is something you learn in life.  To be careful what you recommend to people (especially friends or minors).

Shit load of people recommended SC and there will be fallout from it.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Backer42 on July 27, 2018, 12:43:05 PM
Personally I feel that anybody at all at any time whatsoever who put in more than $120 (the price of a top-notch PC game plus its first expansion pack) was a fool, and, therefore, was separated from his money in the usual way.
You know that Kickstarters, which have $120 as the highest tier, don't raise enough money to develop a AAA video game. So without those "fools", the whole concept doesn't work at all.

Same is true for "freemium" games: They couldn't be developed without whales spending 10k on them.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on July 27, 2018, 03:27:20 PM
You know that Kickstarters, which have $120 as the highest tier, don't raise enough money to develop a AAA video game. So without those "fools", the whole concept doesn't work at all.

Same is true for "freemium" games: They couldn't be developed without whales spending 10k on them.

Well they asked for $2M and got $6M. The tiers went up to $10K (1 backer). This whole bs started when they began to sell JPEGs later on.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Backer42 on August 03, 2018, 06:01:41 PM
Well they asked for $2M and got $6M. The tiers went up to $10K (1 backer). This whole bs started when they began to sell JPEGs later on.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description
The KS asked for a whopping $500k (lol) and got $2M from 30k backers. These are the only externally verified numbers which ever existed.

Everything else was just made up by Chris Roberts. "Look, I have this pledge counter on my own web page" - Sure, Chris. I don't believe a single thing of it until I get to see audited financials.

In fact, using the $2M KS as a base line and Crobert's made up six million dollars, I can calculate a bullshit factor of 6 / 2 = 3.

That means when we look at $190M of bullshit, I deduce a 190 / 3 = $63M of real money from 600k accounts wasted in six years by 325 / 3 = 108 employees. Assuming that the bullshit factor of 3 remained constant, which is pretty unlikely. It might have increased at an exponential rate.

 :grin:
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 07, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
Chris promised that all the money would go towards development. This can be technically true, as all staff costs are considered  part of development.

The key is knowing how much the top staff (Chris, Sandi, Ortwin, Erin et al.) are being paid (effectively paying themselves). Is this commensurate with industry norms, taking into account revelant experience and expertise?

Only by seeing the financials and untangling the web of associated companies will we (and the backers) ever know.

CIG/RSI seem particularly keen to not release this information, which is why the CryTek lawsuit is of interest.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Penny579 on August 07, 2018, 06:42:59 PM
Oh all the money went towards game development,  see we are 'not for profit'.  you only make a profit when your revenue exceeds your costs.

Now you might be critical of our BDSE ever, but I think you will struggle to fault our best dam cost accounting ever, whenever there is a risk of profit somehow we always manage to find a bit more cost.

Any money we raised over 30 million per year we had to pay the chairman as a bonus for raising 30 million, I mean if we did not reward him well we would not have brought in 30 million a year for 'us' in the first place. we need this kind of bonus structure in place as it encourages performance, the bonus is just another part of "fair" wages.

Then we had to get the chairman to negotiate with himself to buy his own IP, obviously another very real cost. and let me tell you "Brilliant" IP does not come cheap.

Then there is the high flying executive team, chairman's wife, brother, and lifelong partner in crime lawyer. Don't worry the chairman was well practised in hard-line negotiations after negotiating with himself in buying IP, definitely getting a deal there.  I think he managed to even keep executive salaries under half a million pounds each with only 8 week holidays a year, and expenses.

The chairman also managed to "fast track" development by buying an existing studio his brother had for a meagre sum of half a million pounds, another very real cost.  No that is not suspicious at all, his brother really did just quit his job, built the studio with his own money and hoped chairman might come to him for help with this ambitious project.

We also cannot forget Mocap Studio we just had to build "for the game" but don't worry the chairman had one of his other shell companies buy it afterwards for a very reasonable price.  The chairman also said he would give us mates rates if we need more mocap in the future, what generous man. He defiantly won't be using that to try sneak back into Hollywood given how successful this project will be.

With all these legitimate costs its miracle we have enough money left over to even pay for developers to even come up with a tech demo more than 8-bit graphics, let alone make a profit.

Edits: to my terrible English



Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Penny579 on August 07, 2018, 07:15:05 PM
Would it be against the law to raise money, sell products based on lies?

ie) all money spent on development and if in the Crytek discovery it comes out that funds were spent on things other than development.



Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on August 08, 2018, 05:53:55 AM
None of that matters because they can do what they like and want with the money. Even if Chris lies and says all the money went into development, when it didn't - that wouldn't be illegal.

Investors can sue individuals and companies at any time, and for any reason. It's a civil issue. e.g. if investors put money into CIG, then the project fails, and the investors later find out that money which could have gone into the project was embezzled or used (see Unjust Enrichment) improperly, they can sue the company and its execs. If in fact that's what happened, then they would win.

Backers are not investors. So nobody gives a shit about them when it comes to accountability. It doesn't matter if Chris put 10% into development, and the other 90% went to his friends and family unjust enrichment program. Backers already agreed to ALL of that when they agreed to the latest ToS which states that it doesn't matter what the circumstance, CIG doesn't have to deliver a game of any kind. And even if they refuse to provide the financial accounting promised if the project fails, the only recourse backers have would be to file an arbitration case.

Only the Feds (FTC, FBI) and State authorities have the ability and capacity to seek any such accountability. And for the amount of money involved, when this project finally collapses, I am fully confident that those investigations will eventually come.

The only thing the CryTek lawsuit is going to do is give CryTek access to the financials via discovery. I fully expect that CIG will file to have them under seal and visibly only to CryTek and its attorneys - and CryTek may or may not oppose that. I don't expect that they will oppose it, nor do I expect that the judge will grant such a request.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 08, 2018, 09:08:19 AM
Would CIG need to provide a reason for wanting the financials filed under seal? Would the Feds have access to them?

Sorry. This is OT and should really be in the other thread.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Opalshine on August 08, 2018, 09:46:14 AM
None of that matters because they can do what they like and want with the money. Even if Chris lies and says all the money went into development, when it didn't - that wouldn't be illegal.

Investors can sue individuals and companies at any time, and for any reason. It's a civil issue. e.g. if investors put money into CIG, then the project fails, and the investors later find out that money which could have gone into the project was embezzled or used (see Unjust Enrichment) improperly, they can sue the company and its execs. If in fact that's what happened, then they would win.

Backers are not investors. So nobody gives a shit about them when it comes to accountability. It doesn't matter if Chris put 10% into development, and the other 90% went to his friends and family unjust enrichment program. Backers already agreed to ALL of that when they agreed to the latest ToS which states that it doesn't matter what the circumstance, CIG doesn't have to deliver a game of any kind. And even if they refuse to provide the financial accounting promised if the project fails, the only recourse backers have would be to file an arbitration case.

Only the Feds (FTC, FBI) and State authorities have the ability and capacity to seek any such accountability. And for the amount of money involved, when this project finally collapses, I am fully confident that those investigations will eventually come.

The only thing the CryTek lawsuit is going to do is give CryTek access to the financials via discovery. I fully expect that CIG will file to have them under seal and visibly only to CryTek and its attorneys - and CryTek may or may not oppose that. I don't expect that they will oppose it, nor do I expect that the judge will grant such a request.

I agree with all of this.  But that means the project will only die very slowly.  There will be no mass backer revolt or shocking Crytek reveal or dramatic day of reckoning. 
"Two weeks" lol.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: N0mad on August 08, 2018, 10:23:21 AM
I agree with all of this.  But that means the project will only die very slowly.  There will be no mass backer revolt or shocking Crytek reveal or dramatic day of reckoning. 
"Two weeks" lol.

The day of reckoning will be dramatic and sudden - because that's how these things end: companies in big trouble give every outward appearance of doing fine up until the moment they can't pay their staff and have to shut everything down. Just consider the constant money grabbing tactics employed over the last 6 months despite the negative publicity it generates. Also consider how little progress has been made over this time. This is not the behaviour of a well run and financially successful company. They are in big trouble, they just don't want their whales to know it.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on August 08, 2018, 06:03:58 PM
Would CIG need to provide a reason for wanting the financials filed under seal? Would the Feds have access to them?

Sorry. This is OT and should really be in the other thread.

A reason? Of course. Why would they want backers or the public seeing how the money was actually spent?

All govt authorities can subpoena for and receive them during any legal (civil or criminal) action. e.g. the on-going Manafort trial. All his financials are in the public court docket and which get written about daily since the trial started.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on August 08, 2018, 06:04:32 PM
I agree with all of this.  But that means the project will only die very slowly.  There will be no mass backer revolt or shocking Crytek reveal or dramatic day of reckoning. 
"Two weeks" lol.

heh, that's what you think.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dexatron on August 15, 2018, 04:47:09 AM
If ship jpg sales stall then its a BOOM... rather quickly I would say with the size of their monthy cash drain....

I'd guess that SQ42 would be the first shop to shut down.



Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: StanTheMan on August 28, 2018, 01:43:40 PM
Dont know if this has been posted before but this self proclaimed Whale is trying to get his $$ back

Quote
level 4
PyroRobby
2 points
·
8 days ago
Yeah, I gave a few ships to friends. Would have spent 3x what I did, which I actually tossed them over $10K for stuff, they could have gotten $30K by now

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/98h7dv/crowdfunded_lawsuit/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/98h7dv/crowdfunded_lawsuit/)
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on August 28, 2018, 01:52:31 PM
Dont know if this has been posted before but this self proclaimed Whale is trying to get his $$ back

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/98h7dv/crowdfunded_lawsuit/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/98h7dv/crowdfunded_lawsuit/)

Yeah, every once in awhile one these types of threads pops up. It's almost as if some of these guys have been living in a vacuum that they don't know they have zero legal recourse at this point in time other than to go to arbitration.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Spunky Munkee on October 23, 2018, 11:46:46 PM
Going back several comments I have to say that a few yerars back when I got my refund I had not heard of DS and all the hubabub as it happened. I only learned about it because I was curious. Having heard DS name bantied about in the SC forum as if it was the devil himself. It was only then that I started going down the wormhole, Reading about what had transpired, Learning about all the failures and wreckage in CR past buisness ventures and realizing that SC was simply the latest failure in the works. I knew I was dissatisfied, found gameplay and progress very lacking but lacked the crucial background information.

Having said all of that I can say that I was pretty much in the dark as to how, even at that point CIG was way behind in the project. Yeah Backers were making excuses back then but they didnt seem so far fetched to give him some time since he hadnt missed the mark by YEARS at that point.

So in saying that I can believe that some ignorant person could easily blunder into buying into this nightmare pretty easily since the glowing poisitive SC videos far outnumber the critical videos. If the search engines work by promoting the videos that have the most views then Noobifier or one of the other loser shills will surely pop up when SC is the search term and the prospective backer/ sucker will see exactly what Robbers wants them to see. Yeah. I might feel a little compassion for the new fool who blunders into this but at this point there is nothing to be done. Its buyer beware. We have tried to reach them.

Off the subject a bit, but not too much...
Reddit needs to change their policy to never allow banning. This system allows Reddit to simply become another form of advertising with no counter opinions allowed. The situation with SC is repeated with other games as well, players not realizing that these forums are wholly controlled by huge corporations, not independant moderator backers. Seriously, Who would believe that EA or Ubisoft would allow some basement dwelling neckbeard to do as he pleases using their multi million dollar intellectual property's logo splashed all over the place? It's all controlled. The messages completely contrived, any dissent is shouted down and burried.
 But not here! Horay for DS and his ethics. Seriously. Demented SC shills are welcome here. We love the entertainment.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Backer42 on October 24, 2018, 05:26:42 AM
Going back several comments I have to say that a few yerars back when I got my refund I had not heard of DS and all the hubabub as it happened. I only learned about it because I was curious. Having heard DS name bantied about in the SC forum as if it was the devil himself. It was only then that I started going down the wormhole, Reading about what had transpired, Learning about all the failures and wreckage in CR past buisness ventures and realizing that SC was simply the latest failure in the works. I knew I was dissatisfied, found gameplay and progress very lacking but lacked the crucial background information.
I never even heard the name of Dr. Derek Smart until Chris Roberts mentioned it in his famous "Letter to Escapist" because corporate censorship was pretty successful back then. And without access to English language content it would have been even worse.

The challenges of consumer protection in the 21st century are about making dissenting voices heard to the consumer or it becomes pointless.

Quote
Reddit needs to change their policy to never allow banning. This system allows Reddit to simply become another form of advertising with no counter opinions allowed. The situation with SC is repeated with other games as well, players not realizing that these forums are wholly controlled by huge corporations, not independant moderator backers. Seriously, Who would believe that EA or Ubisoft would allow some basement dwelling neckbeard to do as he pleases using their multi million dollar intellectual property's logo splashed all over the place? It's all controlled. The messages completely contrived, any dissent is shouted down and burried.
Reddit was created for this sole reason. It was "seeded" with fake content generated by bots for years, before actual people turned up there to discuss their favorite games or other topics. Reddit is nothing more than an advertising billboard disguised as a discussion forum. It never served any other purpose for its owners.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Spunky Munkee on October 24, 2018, 12:12:03 PM
"Reddit was created for this sole reason. It was "seeded" with fake content generated by bots for years, before actual people turned up there to discuss their favorite games or other topics. Reddit is nothing more than an advertising billboard disguised as a discussion forum. It never served any other purpose for its owners."

I didn't realize this at first. Then I began reading about the companies whose sole job is to spam forums with controlled messages or fake reviews. Then I began noticing a pattern on the  Division subreddit and tried to open an anti Division subreddit. You simply cannot open one. Period. Ubisoft probably had some sort of TM lock on the name so nobody can use it. That being the case how did the subreddit for the division exist as it was... Ahh this is simply a corporate controlled site used to promote the game, not an actual forum controlled by the players. Ubisoft would never allow some neckbeard to have their logo splashed all over and have the possibility that some off color comment would appear destroying their reputation.Even mentioning any other subreddit was attacked heavily and repeatedly proving what a sham it was. It was an eye opener. Thinking back Robbers must not have locked up his games title, or greased the right palms in reddit managment to prevent the refunds subreddit from forming. I could not name the "Anti Division" Reddit. The word DIVISION is blocked in any title regardless of how it's used. An interesting experiment for me. A good thing that" Star Citizen Refunds" was not blocked or many more would have lost their money.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Backer42 on October 24, 2018, 12:47:31 PM
Corporate censorship (obviously for marketing reasons) is a big problem nowadays. Thankfully some courts now start to intervene:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9001f242-5290-42da-9c93-151f4babe6c3

Quote
In the view of the Court, Facebook is a marketplace of ideas for its users. Accordingly, Facebook’s obligation to respect users’ interests includes the obligation to respect their constitutional fundamental right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech applies not only with regard to governments and public authorities, but also, indirectly, to individuals and companies.
So the "we are private entity and do whatever we want" excuse doesn't stick anymore.
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: Padrepapp on November 12, 2018, 03:45:45 AM
When can we expect any news in this front?
Title: Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
Post by: dsmart on November 12, 2018, 04:52:09 AM
Corporate censorship (obviously for marketing reasons) is a big problem nowadays. Thankfully some courts now start to intervene:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9001f242-5290-42da-9c93-151f4babe6c3
So the "we are private entity and do whatever we want" excuse doesn't stick anymore.

Well it did. Until it was challenged. Which is what tends to happen.