
‘Star Citizen’ Court Case Reveals the Messy Reality of Crowdfunding a $200M Game - danso
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ne5n7b/star-citizen-court-documents-reveal-the-messy-reality-of-crowdfunding-a-dollar200-million-game
======
cornholio
He lost because of a forced arbitration clause. This massive privatization of
justice where any boilerplate service or product now comes with forced
arbitration is making my blood boil.

The justice system should always be an option when arbitration fails, and
arbitration should take no more than a reasonable time to fail (say, two weeks
for this $5000 amount). The whole point of a small claims court is to handle
such cases, not offload them to a dodgy corporate lawyer masquerading as a
judge.

If the public service of justice is slow and expensive, we need to fix the
public service, not replace it with a free market simulacrum. That's always
the case with non marketable but essential public goods.

~~~
gwern
I'm more disturbed by the parts of the article which say that he never agreed
to a forced arbitration clause in the first place because it wasn't in the ToS
when he paid, but the judge decided to go with the later ToS anyway:

> According to Lord, the terms of service when he made the initial pledge
> aren’t the same terms of service they are today. The original terms of
> service, according to RSI’s own records, make no mention of arbitration
> before February 2015. “These Terms of Service (TOS) do not affect any
> transactions made before its effective date,” RSI’s terms site said. “All
> prior transactions are governed by the TOS in effect on the date of such
> transactions.”

> Lord came to court prepared. He had printed out multiple versions of the
> terms of service, all records of communication with RSI, and a long document
> recording the 77 promises RSI hasn’t fulfilled in a timely fashion,
> including citations showing where and when RSI made those promises. But the
> case never got that far. He said RSI’s representatives understood that
> Lord’s pledges weren’t covered by the arbitration clause, and he offered to
> settle, again, for $3,800. They declined.

> According to Lord, when RSI’s representatives stood before the judge, they
> tried to argue the arbitration clause of their TOS. “Right off the bat, they
> assert the arbitration clause applied to everything, even though it plainly
> didn't,” Lord said. “I had to give the judge a copy of the first terms of
> services that clearly show that the arbitration clause was not there for the
> first few transactions.”

> ...According to Lord, the judge decided to apply the current TOS to all of
> the transactions in dispute. “He said he didn’t want two rulings floating
> out there,” Lord said. He may have lost this case, but he’s not done
> fighting. “I’m going to pursue it further. I’m not sure in what direction.
> I’m going to be speaking with a couple of different attorneys to evaluate my
> options.”

I mean... what? So even if you do exercise your choice as a consumer to avoid
a forced-arbitration clause, companies can simply add it to their ToSes later
on and retroactively make it apply to all interactions ever with the company?

~~~
daburninatorrr
This is especially important, and I don't see anyone else here (at the moment
of posting this) calling this out. This is a disastrous precedent to set for
consumers, because it means that even though you are agreeing to terms on the
date of the sale, those same terms of the sale can be changed on a moments
notice and still affect you, without your knowledge or consent. It's a shame
that he has to keep fighting this, but I would assume (edit: I should say, I
really, really hope) that this decision will eventually be overturned.

~~~
NullPrefix
In other words if ToS can be changed retroactively, it's a wildcard agreement.
Is there even a point in reading it?

~~~
PurpleBoxDragon
The simple solution is we need to ban all ToSs and EULAs. Make it a crime to
try to enforce them on users, one that results in mandatory prison time (else
companies will still use them to scare consumers, same as the warranty void if
removed stickers).

~~~
mjevans
We need a library of standard contract terms (so that every time you buy a
thing you don't need to read a new contract, and to prevent shafting either
side on the deals).

We also need those contracts to be much simpler. A single page of large font
in language simple enough for a grade school graduate to understand what's
supposed to happen.

~~~
meko
But that would be s-s-socialism!!

------
zinckiwi
I pledged a fraction of this fellow's total in Star Citizen, probably the
lowest tier that would result in a digital copy of the game once complete. I
was after a modern Privateer reboot, essentially, and figured it was worth the
gamble.

I haven't followed the development with anything more than a casual,
occasional glance and accompanying eye-roll. I doubt I'll ever see anything
come of it. A shame, not necessarily a surprise.

I'm fully aware and prepared that kickstarting a game confers no guarantee,
but the feature creep in this case is staggering. I suspect that if this case
were to succeed they'd suddenly find themselves underwater with all the
pledges clawed back once the precedent was set.

~~~
raesene9
For me, Elite:Dangerous had a better model (although still not without it's
troubles).

They delivered the base game in reasonable order and have been iterating and
adding content since then.

Whilst the early game was pretty sparse in terms of content, at least it was
delivered and reasonably complete.

~~~
djsumdog
That does seem like a better model. I might have to check that game out.

Games should produce the base game they promised, and then just add expansion
packs or additional levels (free to initial backers) to try and get everything
else in until the money runs out.

Maybe even the old shareware style route of releasing Episode 1, 2 and 3
(although in the shareware days, Ep1 was free and 2/3 were commercial .. like
1 was a really long game demo).

~~~
notjustanymike
I love Elite, just be prepared it's very much a make-your-own-adventure game.

------
dreen
Meanwhile, No Mans Sky, the underdog-turn-most-hated-turn-underdog-again game
is releasing full multiplayer free upgrade next week. They engineered a PR
disaster for themselves but have been adding great features at a slow steady
pace, which is exactly how it should be done.

~~~
alexgmcm
How does it compare to Elite Dangerous?

~~~
pjc50
They're actually very different games. NMS is a "Roger Dean artwork generator"
with a small survival game embedded in it, while ED is an inheritor of Elite
for people who prefer a much more sparsely populated universe than Eve Online.
And who like orange.

~~~
mereel
So. Much. Orange.

------
ramblerman
I was 25 when I backed this game. Not only am I hugely disappointed in the
waterfall approach, and feature creep that pushed this over the edge.

But I am 33 today! My desire to play MMOs has also slowly evaporated.

~~~
michaelcampbell
Wait, that's 8 years. Article says they didn't start the kickstarter till
2012; _6_ years ago.

~~~
izuchukwu
If they began backing before their birthday in 2012, today’s birthday would
make an 8 year age difference.

Happy birthday gp!

~~~
ikeboy
No it wouldn't. If they were 25 on some date in 2012, then they'd be 31 on the
same date in 2018 and the oldest they could be at any point in 2018 would be
32

~~~
izuchukwu
Whoops, I misremembered my age in 2012 when calculating that. Their birthday
yesterday would, in fact, make at most a 7 year age difference. Maybe gp
simply misremembered too ;)

------
lloydde
I choked on my coffee when I read "Lord is a data scientist who works on
developing AI for SAP—a data-processing company in Colorado." SAP as in the
90k employee German-based European multinational software corporation?!

~~~
georgeecollins
That bugged me too. It makes me wonder about the quality of the journalism in
other places.

------
im3w1l
I had an opposite experience of crowdfunding just yesterday. I had played the
f2p clicker heroes (with iap, but it was easy to hack your save to get them
for free, but i didn't) and liked it a lot. Never having supported them in any
way, I thought that them asking for $20 to make a sequel was a perfect
opportunity to give back even if I got no game for it. And yesterday, half a
year after they asked for money the beta is out!

Anyway I feel asking for your money back sounds like it would ruin crowd
funding. How can the developers spend the money on development if there is a
risk they need to refund people en masse? And if they can't spend it, what's
even the point? I mean yeah I guess if all the money's gone to luxury resorts
and bunga bunga parties then that's not acceptable but if they spent it trying
and failing that's just tough shit.

~~~
nebulous1
Well, the guy's point is that they changed what they were making after they
took his money. This isn't something that's outside of their control, and it's
not unreasonable to suggest they shouldn't do that unless they're willing to
refund.

------
lykr0n
I've dumped about a grand into Star Citizen over the course of 4 years. I've
followed updates and developments with mild interest, and ever once and a
while I jump back into it to see what's changed. It's always amazing to see
the progress they have made, wither it be the engine tech or just the game
play.

Do I think it will come out in the next year or two? No, but I think it will.
Development is on going and active. Progress is transparent (which is why I
don't pay attention- I like the surprise). Milestones have been reached, and
expectations have been met. Do I think I've gotten $1k of enjoyment from the
game back when I was playing it? Yes. =

~~~
raesene9
When you say "expectations have been met", did you expect the game to take
this long to develop?

Looking at the original kickstarter from 2012
[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-
citizen?ref=na...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-
citizen?ref=nav_search&result=project&term=star%20citizen) it looks like the
original ship date was Nov 2014, so it seems that at least some people's
expectations aren't likely to have been met.

~~~
lykr0n
I knew when I got involved I was putting money into a black box. I was (and
still am) enthralled with the idea Chris Roberts has presented. When I was
able to jump into a ship and play Area Commander with other People, I felt
like what I signed up for was delivered. But, I'm excited with what else is
coming.

And honestly, I'm glad. If they had just stuck to the initial scope, it would
be less exciting. I'd rather dream big and be let down versus not have the
chance to dream in the first place. I've backed some kickstarter projects that
did what I signed up for, and awesome. I've also backed some projects that got
widely popular and the people decided to increase the scope of what they were
trying to do. Some of them worked, some of them didn't, and some looks like
they are going to. I'm not sure which is better, but for me I lean towards
"let's try to do awesome."

EDIT. A point I wanted to share is that you also need to quantify enjoyment
and wow factor. I've seen things come out of Star Citizen that make me feel
like a kid again. They have done some awesome stuff in terms of visuals and
engineering. I would still love to have a finished project, but from what I've
played and seen already, I would not be overly disappointed if the game
disappeared tomorrow.

I've enjoyed the journey, and will continue to enjoy it. That has to count for
something. I'm not saying I don't expect a full game to come, I do.

~~~
raesene9
Enjoyment is always subjective and if you feel that you've got appropriate
levels of enjoyment for the money you've spent then it obviously works for
you.

------
gwbas1c
> But games change during development and, according to Lord, Star Citizen
> changed a lot. According to the game’s original pitch on Kickstarter, it
> would be a space sim with a co-op multiplayer game, an offline single-player
> experience, and a persistent universe. It’s since become a massively
> multiplayer online game and a separate single-player game with first-person
> shooter elements called Squadron 42, which RSI originally pitched as “A Wing
> Commander style single player mode, playable OFFLINE if you want.”

> Along with the game—which originally had a targeted release date of
> 2014—Lord was supposed to have received numerous bits of physical swag. “So
> aside from [the game], I'm supposed to get a spaceship USB drive, silver
> collector’s box, CDs, DVDs, spaceship blueprints, models of the spaceship, a
> hardback book,” he said. “That's the making of Star Citizen, which—if they
> end up making this game—might turn into an encyclopedia set.”

This is a clear breach of contract. He should work with a real lawyer and seek
punitive damages. Changing what the product _is_ shouldn't be allowed.
Hopefully the lawyer includes Kickstarter in the suit, because they also
should be able to step in when a product changes fundamentally from what its
funders paid for.

~~~
sullyj3
What's the difference between a persistent universe and an MMO?

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
Persistence universe just means the game world and any changes done in it
still exist (and possibly continue to be simulated) even when you log off.
There's no true end to the game.

MMO means massively multiplayer online. Hundreds, thousands, or more in a
single world.

While the two are often hand-in-hand, they don't have to be. A persistent
universe that is only open to you and 4 friends wouldn't be an MMO.

SimCity 2013 is often described as an MMO, but I would argue it really isn't,
since each region you play has a maximum of 1 player per city in the region
(though 1 player can play multiple cities), which each region having only a
few cities, and each region is completely independent of other regions.
Effectively, each region is its own universe instance played by 1-16 players.
Players can make their regions public, allowing cities to be claimed by any
other player in the world, but claims are permanent until the player chooses
to release their claim.

------
chx
> “Like they were some sort of charity, or like I just gave them $4,500
> because I like them,” he said. “I gave them $4,500 because I wanted them to
> give me a video game.”

So I am not sure what's the state of affairs today but certainly in the early
days it was pretty well understood that Kickstarter is not a store and every
dollar you put in there might just disappear and you are relying on the good
faith of the campaign runner.

------
nottorp
While i regularly throw $20-$50 into game kickstarters, I stayed away from
both Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous when I saw how hyped they were. Nothing
good was going to come out of that.

Personal statistics: 19 kickstarters backed, got a finished product on 9 of
them so far, 2 more have builds that show everything is on track. Everything I
got was acceptable, with at least 7 being good or above.

Also, ALL of them were late delivering.

Not bad, will crowdfund again. Never $4500 though.

~~~
dejawu
Your skepticism is well-founded, but I'd like to put in a good word for Elite
Dangerous. I bought it for $15 on sale long after the Kickstarter had ended
and it constantly impresses me with its sense of scale and level of polish.
Sometimes I'm amazed that game exists at all, let alone that it successfully
came out of a Kickstarter.

It's not for everyone but if the idea of "Euro Truck Simulator in space"
appeals to you, you'll probably enjoy it.

~~~
nottorp
Is it Euro Truck Simulator in space? Because I read some previews a couple
years ago (multiplayer, mind) and they sounded like a clone of Eve: Online...

~~~
thegginthesky
It definitely can be played as Euro Truck Simulator in space, but there's also
a lot to do in terms of exploration, combat, missions and multiplayer. It's a
game where nothing is really forced on you and you can play as you'd like.

------
wongarsu
>one of the worst cases of feature creep in history

crowdfunding campaign that exceed expectations put the developer in a really
tough spot. Star Citizen asked for $2 million but got 6. If they had said they
keep everything the same, the schedule would stay sane but everyone would call
it a money grab because they take $6 million to develop a $2 million game. The
other option is to make use of the additional $4 million, but in almost all
cases that will destroy the schedule.

Now if you are like Star Citizen and keep raising money (and get another $180
million) that same principle quickly pushes you deeper and deeper into feature
creep.

It's a systematic problem every crowd funding project has to solve. Star
Citizen seems to have stabilized their predictions of total money raised to
get a fixed feature set, but I can't blame them for not predicting that they
would raise over $200 million until release and planning for that.

~~~
kikki
> Star Citizen asked for $2 million but got 6. If they had said they keep
> everything the same, the schedule would stay sane but everyone would call it
> a money grab because they take $6 million to develop a $2 million game.

What? That's not how crowdfunding works. If you crowdfund a bag for $200k and
you get $1 mil, you don't turn that into a jetpack - you just ship the bag
that you promised.

~~~
salvar
A $2 million game will cost (more or less) the same to develop whether it goes
on to sell 1, 100, 10000 or 10 million copies. The cost of producing a handbag
depends a whole lot on how many you need to produce.

So assuming that shipping more copies is very cheap once the game is
developed, what do you do when you get $6 million in funding for a $2 million
game?

~~~
newen
You profit? That's what every other company that sells software does.

~~~
learc83
That's not how crowdfunding works though. You aren't selling a product, you're
asking for money to cover the production expenses for a product.

That often includes a salary for the creators, but it's hard to justify a
multi-million dollar profit (from the crowdfunding itself).

~~~
ectospheno
I think the point he was trying to make is that they had no obligation to make
crowdfunding work like people expected it to. They were perfectly within their
rights to just ship on time and bag the rest as profit.

~~~
jkchu
I agree that it is well within their rights to do that. But I also feel that
this is a reason why large software products are not inherently a great fit
for the Kickstarter model. I think Steam's "early-access" model is a much more
intuitive fit for both the developers and the consumers of these games.

------
cousin_it
As a total newbie (well almost newbie, I've released one tiny game) I just
want to ask: why not gray-box the whole damn game first, then paint rough 90s
looking graphics on top, then gradually paint the whole game over with modern
graphics? While tuning the gameplay the whole time? That just seems like the
only sane way to build something huge, but instead all the big developers like
CIG seem to start with ultra-detailed vertical slices for some reason.

~~~
beerlord
Because Star Citizen is not really a game at this point, more a funding
vehicle to get more money out of kickstarters - many of whom are suffering
from the 'sunk cost' fallacy.

Grey boxing is a step towards a complete game, but it doesn't allow you to
collect money the way that a glorious, fully modelled giant spaceship (that
people can buy for $250 - years before there is even a game to play it in)
does.

~~~
mawburn
Star Citizen has pretty much given up all hope of trying to give people
realistic expectations of a game. At this point, it's just everything anyone
has ever wanted in a space MMO, no matter how grandiose or pointless a
complicated feature would be to the overall gameplay.

It amazes me that people are still being duped by it.

~~~
sombremesa
Ha. Makes me think of the way Trump makes promises. Seems like a great way to
get a crowd riled up.

------
batmanthehorse
I love reading about game dev/watching videos and I've watched a few Star
Citizen developer updates. Seems like they were wasting a tremendous amount of
time refining small details like adjusting the vents and decals and landing
gear on ships that could already be considered complete. It struck me as
absolutely awful time management.

~~~
ryandrake
It sounds like they might simply need a good (and empowered) project manager
to crack the whip on schedule and say no to scope creep. I’d love to see what
their internal estimates and work breakdown looks like! When they miss a
milestone, what corrective action do they take? Do they give themselves any
real deadlines? So many games would make such interesting project management
case studies.

~~~
socceroos
Head over to their website and take a look. They have some of the most
seasoned game project managers on their books.

------
the_snooze
That sucks, but it seems almost inevitable with these new funding/purchasing
models: the risk necessarily shifts from the developer and onto the consumer.
This is a big reason why I'm a "patient gamer:" why should I be the one
exposed to uncertainty when there are plenty of other complete and patched
games out there vying for my attention?

~~~
djsumdog
I mean, it does need to be treated like an investment, and you can lose on an
investment. You can say, "That Camera rig is amazing. I've always wanted
something like that. There's nothing on the market like that."

If you put like $600 in, you're hoping for a return on that investment in 8
months of a product. You might get something amazing, or something okay or
nothing at all. Just like any other venture.

Okay, so you might say, "Well I don't want to invest, but I'll buy it once
it's build if other people put up the funding." It's successful aaaaaand
that's it. No more units.

That's a big issue, because now people with existing units may not even have a
repair path. Devices could start getting rare and go on eBay for tons. This
might even violate some basic product warrant laws in some country.

This doesn't apply here though, because games can always be purchased and
distributed to people later without having to get them made in a factory.

~~~
mesozoic
If you are have no expectation to get your principle invested much less
potential for additional monetary returns then it is NOT an investment. The
potential monetary returns on this is $0 in all cases.

------
vesak
Why don't people understand that crowdfunding is not indie shopping? It's a
high risk investment. You support projects you believe in (in the religious
sense of the word) and if you're lucky, you might get something.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why don't people understand that crowdfunding is not indie shopping? It's a
> high risk investment.

Because what is being offered is neither a debt or equity instrument but a
defined good or service, just as with other shopping vebues, and because the
kind of detailed financial and other information that would be made available
to investors for due diligence with normal high-risk investments is not
offered or available for most crowdfunded projects.

------
serg_chernata
I'm a backer and I have no problem with this. Many AAA titles take a decade or
more from start to finish. For example, between Diablo 2 and 3. I want the
best space sim and I like what RSI is doing. I'm not holding my breath, just
living my life and when the game is finished I will be happy to play it.
Although, I also did not drop 5 grand on this game.

~~~
macspoofing
> Many AAA titles take a decade or more from start to finish.

AAA titles that take a decade or more to develop are usually stuck in some
sort of development hell.

>I want the best space sim and I like what RSI is doing.

You like that instead of making the best space sim, they are adding focusing
on adding an first person combat? It's clear as day that Roberts and Co. lack
any sort of discipline. It's a perfect example why sometimes constraints on
creative freedom (usually forced by eviiiil publishers) are a good thing.

~~~
serg_chernata
Unfortunately, I do like it. To each his own.

~~~
macspoofing
To each his own indeed, but I think it would be a good idea for them to
release a kick-ass space sim, and then refine and expand gameplay in Star
Citizen 2.

------
crististm
I've read somewhere that you should not lend to those more powerful than you.
:)

~~~
netule
Though, it's not a loan since you don't get your money back.

------
Kagerjay
Its been so many years and this game still is no where near completion. A
great example of feature creep and why waterfall approaches are sometimes not
the best.

------
Operyl
I guess my biggest issue with this all is that it’s called a “pledge.” I
pledge money on the condition that I get a game. In this case they’re just
taking my money with a huge chance that I’ll never see anything remotely close
to what I pledged for. My end was fulfilled, their end not so much.

~~~
pc86
A belief that Kickstarter or similar services are anything other than a
donation to a hope that something happens is willfully ignoring reality.

~~~
Operyl
I was coming at it from the viewpoint of a regular consumer that gets wrangled
into these "schemes." I understand the risks, the regular consumer sure as
hell does not.

------
aiyodev
There’s a crowdsourced tracker of all of the promises made to backers of Star
Citizen over the years thoroughly documented with links to the proof.

[https://starcitizentracker.github.io/](https://starcitizentracker.github.io/)

Since posting this always gets a lot of hatred from the koolaid drinkers, I’m
going to pre-emptively suggest that, if you have a problem with something on
the tracker, you should submit a correction. You should not attack me or the
people who contributed to it.

~~~
CedarMadness
I feel like this is generally fair, but things that get pushed back from one
patch to the next shouldn't count as broken promises. It seems disingenuous to
count "3.2 didn't have mining, it's been pushed to 3.3" on the same level as
"we said you'd be able to run your own server with mods, but now you can't".
Maybe you need another category for Delayed

~~~
deadbunny
Yeah, I had a bit of a look and a good number of the "not
implemented/ignored/delayed" is hardly surprising. The game is still in
development and the stuff in "broken promises" is basically slipped ship
dates, hardly a massive shock.

Given that they seem to be tracking basically everything, even down to the
level of "mentioned once in an interview that this might sometime be
possible", I would be super interested to see this after an official 1.0
release and for the years of patches after.

I really hope they have history tracking for the entries, so you can see how
they have been categorized over time and when they went from one status to
another. I'd be way more interested in those stats, seeing what they have
delivered over time.

However I'm sure this will stop being updated once CIG start releasing stuff
as it appears the only thing keeping it going is anger.

------
pageald
Has there ever been a high profile early access game that crossed the finish
line? It seems like studios usually take the money and run, like Bohemia
Interactive with DayZ. Five years and tens/hundreds of millions of dollars in
revenue and the game is abandonware.

I guess Minecraft is one notable exception.

~~~
zchrykng
Warframe would be another, imo.

~~~
ChrisAntaki
Rust left early access this January, after 4 years.
[https://rust.facepunch.com/blog/leaving-early-
access/](https://rust.facepunch.com/blog/leaving-early-access/)

------
empath75
Wrapping every purchase in a binding arbitration agreement is absurd. It
completely defangs consumer protection laws.

~~~
julesnp
You're not purchasing anything on Kickstarter though, you're making a
donation.

~~~
raesene9
Nope. I see that argument many times relating to crowd funding and it just
isn't the case.

When you pledge to a kickstarter, they're committing to providing the rewards
stated for the money provided.

The difference between that and a standard purchase is that the product
generally doesn't exist yet, which is why there is a risks section attached to
every campaign, so that backers are aware that the product could run into
problems.

However it's not a donation.

~~~
robbiep
You’re not committing to a purchase though, there is some inherent risk in a
kickstarter that they won’t deliver. And there is very little mechanism to
chase them (usually they have either done a runner or gone belly up) So this
is an interesting case, because the company is still around, and especially so
as the poor guy is suffering MS and so has a more time limited domain to see a
reward

~~~
raesene9
indeed in most cases where kickstarters don't deliver by such wide margins the
company is long gone.

This one is probably on older Kickstarter T&Cs so it'd be harder to get money
back. In more recent times Kickstarter have tried to toughen up a little after
early failures like ZioneyeZ

------
kemonocode
> It's also worth noting that we're in a cultural moment in which the
> relationship between fans and creators is becoming more toxic. Star Wars
> fans who don't like The Last Jedi are demanding to remake the movie to fit
> their expectations. Trolls think the new She-Ra cartoon doesn't fit their
> highly specific conception of what is "feminine." Creators, of course,
> should be free to create what they want without fearing a mob. That's how we
> got the things that people are fans of in the first place, and RSI should be
> free to make Star Citizen what it wants. That being said, it's no wonder
> that Star Citizen fans feel like they have some degree of ownership over
> what it should be, seeing as how so many of them invested thousands of
> dollars in funding its development.

Kindly fuck off, Motherboard. This modern trend of forced arbitration clauses
and IP owners, not just creators, getting their panties in a bunch because
turns out they're not perfect and their fans can be very opinionated has to
end. It's not "toxic," it's people who don't want to see their memories being
violated to make a quick buck, or promises being blatantly broken over and
over again.

------
djsumdog
So what other good single player space sims are out there today? I'm not an
MMO person. The last good one I played was Strike Suit Zero/Infinity.

Back in the day I played Wing Command I, II, III, IV and Prophecy (still have
many of them on CD). I was also a big fan of TIE Fighter/X-Wing. It seems like
this genre has stagnated quite a bite in the past few years, or has gone
entirely MMO.

Is anything doing anything new and good in this genre?

~~~
dejawu
I really like Elite: Dangerous and commented about it elsewhere in this
thread[0]. You can play it solo if you want and never have to worry about
encountering other players. Combat is real-time and you even have to dock the
ship yourself. Like I mention in the other comment, I'm constantly impressed
by the scale and polish of the game.

I'll watch some reviews of the new No Man's Sky update and if it looks decent
I'll probably get it on sale.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17559080](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17559080)

------
sandworm101
It isnt freature creep. Being crowd-funded is their business model. New
features, new hype, means new money. They cannot ever finish because then it
all stops. The game will only be released once the cowdfumding well runs dry.
Therefore, the best way to get the eventual game is to stop supporting it with
money.

They lost me when they hired gillian anderson. I want to believe, but that was
jumping a shark too far.

~~~
deadbunny
I'll be honest in that I've not followed development at all but hearing they
have hired an actress just leads me to assume she is voicing/mocaping a
character in the SP portion of the game. How is that any different from CoD
hiring Kevin Spacey or Mark Hamil in Wing Commander? Let alone jumping the
shark.

~~~
sandworm101
Because crowdfunded developers running on tight budgets generally don't throw
money at stars. It might be a good business investment for a movie or
television show, but most early supporters would rather the game be out sooner
with B or C-list talent. Star power is icing a cake that isn't yet baked.

Particular to Star Citizen, fans remember well the use of Mark Hamill in one
of the Wing Commander games, the one that came spread across six cd-roms. It
was an interesting cross-media experiment but the industry took from that
incident that gamers want a game, not cutscenes.

There is also great danger in hiring a star for something that will not come
out until many years later. She may not be as famous in 2-5 (10?) years when
the game actually arrives. She could be involved in a scandal. She could star
in a series of flops. She could simply retire. Then the extra money spent on
her will have been wasted. It is very odd decision to pay a premium for her
over literally hundreds of equally capable but less-famous actors.

------
xoa
Crowdfunding can clearly serve a useful role as part of the modern mix of
societal funding sources, but it's definitely still more wild west when it
comes to uniformity of terms and regulations. It's not "investing" in the
classic sense but it's also certainly not "donating" either, nor is it a
preorder. "Backing" involves its own set of concerns and scale and rules
should reflect that, and by design it primarily involves members of the
general public who are not financially sophisticated. That should have
implications vs how traditional investing is managed.

I actually think that the single biggest missing piece right now is the lack
of a more standardized, orderly and general public friendly equivalent to the
bankruptcy process and laws. There should be minimal uniform legal standards
for determining when a project has "failed", both in terms of simply running
out of money but also in terms of passing deadlines. For example, project
proposers could be required to declare a hard final deadline (they could have
other earlier soft deadline projections that'd be separate) in the initial
campaign. If they reached that without completion, backers could then be
required to vote on whether to accept an extension. If not, the project would
go to the "failed" process. If a majority approved it'd receive another year
or two, at which point another vote would be required (I'd make a super
majority be required after the first one but that's an implementation detail
that could be debated). The idea would be to price in some level of planning
and certainty and also to help ensure, just like the full bankruptcy system,
that there are no "zombie corps" hanging around tying up economic assets and
that instead things get wrapped up promptly so whatever is left can be
redeployed. And project corps should be taking deadline projections seriously,
and should need to make a case for significant alteration. Given how
passionate and understanding (arguably too much) most backers seem to be about
things they believe in I don't think that's a huge stretch either, but it
should still need to happen.

If a project ended up in "failed" status (be it fund exhaustion, the creators
declaring a failure, or a final deadline extension denial) then backers would
automatically be treated as senior creditors with the possibility of non-
financial renumeration. Money should be proportionally returned of course, but
additionally backers should receive something along the lines of a non-
exclusive, perpetual global license to any original IP assets the project
generated. Even merely some models or the like could then at least be recycled
by backers into something else of some value.

When dealing directly with the non-financially sophisticated public being
presented with take-it-or-leave-it terms it is not unreasonable to expect
higher requirements for ensuring information symmetry and that proposers have
performed proper diligence first. Failures are entirely inevitable, but the
results don't have to linger nor value be quite as tied up as the current
state of things. Yes, these requirements might mean that some developers don't
seek out crowd funding or face increased upfront work, but I think that would
be acceptable.

\----

With regards to this case specifically and legally the details are curious,
and I wonder if anyone who knows the system well could find the exact ruling
on PACER (if small claims proceedings even end up on PACER)? I don't think
infinite return of backed should be a general requirement, but after reading
this and other coverage the specific grounds of the decision are confusing.
Retroactive arbitrary application of a TOS change is odd. Like, if the lawyers
had said that the TOS changed before (or during) his playing the beta and
taking other active involvement, and that he had specifically agreed to an
updated TOS at that point in time, I could see the moral argument but that at
least would kind of make sense as something that might be straightforward.
Updating TOS and requiring agreement for continued use or else refusal and
then an argument under the old ones is hardly uncommon either. But the article
frames it as a "beta is equivalent to delivery" argument, which more sounds
like trying to bamboozle the judge. On the other hand, it's clearly though
understandably slanted from the perspective of the plaintiff, and while small
claims court is explicitly intended to be friendly to the general public with
no need for a lawyer it's still possible he made some basic but significant
blunder due to self-representing.

This specific case seems like it touches on a number of broader concerns like
the spread of binding arbitration and TOS shenanigans but since it's a
specific case the specific details matter. I'm not sure what it broadly means
for crowdfunding if anything precisely because crowdfunding is currently such
a hodgepodge. And that goes _both_ ways too, I've seen a scary number of
project proposers who have no so much as established an LLC to do it through
and thus face personal liability issues. That's not even counting any amateur
projects who did so but then have not done basic accounting and stayed
respectful of the corporate veil. A sensible framework could make crowdfunding
a lot more sustainable, fair, less prone to abuse, and in turn more efficient
for all parties involved.

~~~
jrochkind1
PACER only has federal court documents.

Small claims court decisions probably don't end up anywhere. I doubt there is
an "opinion" even written, just a judgement.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Small claims court decisions probably don't end up anywhere.

I would think in the usual case they would at a minimum be public records held
by the court and subject to the usual mechanisms for accessing public records.

~~~
jrochkind1
Yes, the judgement. There is almost certainly no written opinion.

------
wiz21c
if I was RSI with that much money, I'd say : "let's never finish the game, we
got plenty of money to live on for years, making cool tech demo's"...

~~~
eximius
Then you'd be an asshole.

~~~
wiz21c
when one comes to money I'm afraid some can come to super complex
justifications for pretending they're not an AH when they clearly are.

------
georgeecollins
I'm actually confident that Star Citizen will eventually come out. While $200m
sounds like a lot of money, a popular online game can make much more than
that. The pre-sales have proven that there is a fanatic audience. If the
project is horribly managed now, expert developers and investors can be
brought in to achieve the goal. The passion and awareness is golden.

------
Tepix
I'm also a golden ticket holder and my patience is evaporating.

I can't believe the single player campaign has not been released yet! Also the
published roadmap doesn't seem to end anywhere that is satisfactory.

They need to kick out a whole bunch of features (perhaps temporarily) to get
the game in a state that it's somewhat complete and playable.

~~~
4restm
Golden ticket holder here as well, personally I don't mind, I check back into
the game every 3 or so months, enjoy whats new, read the monthly pdf's and
thats that. I understand that the game will take time, and am satisfied with
my investment in the development

------
laythea
I will never know how so many people get sucked in and used like this. Surely
at least some of the "blame" for this situation lies in the individual that
got used.

~~~
kowdermeister
You can know it:

STAR CITIZENS: 2,058,546

[https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-
goals](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals)

------
SpecialistEMT
Star Citizen is the Elon Musk of video games

------
shiburizu
Two things you can get a lot of money from for putting on a good show: Early
access games and ICOs.

------
brookhaven_dude
It is now incumbent upon Kickstarter to ban such private arbitration clauses
on its site.

------
yosefzeev
Cases like these are the reasons why common law grand juries should be
utilized. Done correctly, they can serve as a check and balance against
institutionalized judicial corruption that operates federally divorced from
the people it is supposed to serve.

------
s73v3r_
Mandatory arbitration clauses need to be eliminated. There is absolutely no
valid use of them anywhere.

------
arcaster
Vice reveals the messy reality of running both an accurate, non-biased and
"edgy" "news" outlet.

------
yAnonymous
In my opinion the game looks great so far and I hope they take their time to
finish it.

Should they manage to match their own high expectations, the game will be
played for years to come, like WoW, and it'd better have a good base then.

