Author Topic: Backers v CIG/RSI  (Read 12768 times)

Penny579

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #45 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.




dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4591
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #46 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.
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

Caveat Emptor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #47 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.

Opalshine

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #48 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.

N0mad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #49 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.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4591
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #50 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.
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4591
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #51 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.
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

dexatron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #52 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.



Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do

StanTheMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 671
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #53 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/

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4591
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #54 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/

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.
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

Spunky Munkee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #55 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.

Backer42

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Refundian
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #56 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.

Spunky Munkee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #57 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.

Backer42

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Refundian
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #58 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.

Padrepapp

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Backers v CIG/RSI
« Reply #59 on: November 12, 2018, 03:45:45 AM »
When can we expect any news in this front?

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk