Page 5 of 6
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:24 pm
by Malicious Wraith
Bacon wrote:QUOTE (Bacon @ Oct 31 2013, 03:00 PM) Kickstarter creates a binding, legal contract between buyer and seller. The same type of basic contract that is created when you buy a $#@!ing piece of cheese at the grocery store.
Since everything you just said is contingent on this assumption, I will address only it.
This is an incorrect statement.
From Kickstarter:
You aren't buying anything. That is fundamentally an incorrect comparison. You are not legally entitled to the "cheese".
The proper analogy would be giving your supermarket free money in an envelope with "Please stock my favorite cheese brand" on it. I do not believe that there is a contract for service or goods here.
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:39 pm
by takingarms1
I would disagree with MW. There's a contract, but it isn't as simple as a contract to buy cheese at a supermarket. You have to look at what the project promises in return for a donation. So if the project says, "in return for a donation, you get a free hat" than you're entitled to the hat. If it says, "you get a copy of the game" than you are entitled to that, also. Failure to fulfill that contract gives the person donating a legal recourse. Or at least, that is what I would argue.
Now if you're only donating $50, it might not be worth your time to chase the developer. However a class action lawsuit for thousands of donators might get you somewhere.
The essential problem with that guarantee isn't that you can't sue on the contract, it's that the person who you contracted with might not be able to pay you once they've blown all the money on hookers and booze. And also, the fact that it's not really worth your time to sue over a $50 donation.
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:40 pm
by Vortrog
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:23 pm
by Bacon_00
TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 31 2013, 12:39 PM) I would disagree with MW. There's a contract, but it isn't as simple as a contract to buy cheese at a supermarket. You have to look at what the project promises in return for a donation. So if the project says, "in return for a donation, you get a free hat" than you're entitled to the hat. If it says, "you get a copy of the game" than you are entitled to that, also. Failure to fulfill that contract gives the person donating a legal recourse. Or at least, that is what I would argue.
Now if you're only donating $50, it might not be worth your time to chase the developer. However a class action lawsuit for thousands of donators might get you somewhere.
The essential problem with that guarantee isn't that you can't sue on the contract, it's that the person who you contracted with might not be able to pay you once they've blown all the money on hookers and booze. And also, the fact that it's not really worth your time to sue over a $50 donation.
This. The "reward" is very often "a copy of the game." If you pledge an amount that promises no rewards, then no, you aren't buying any "cheese" and then you're basically just donating money to something you like the idea of, but aren't expecting any reward. There's no real buyers contract there. But most pledges have a reward. So that reward is what I'm speaking to, and is the core of my argument. That is where the contract is formed. That is your "cheese."
Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:38 pm
by Adept
HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Oct 28 2013, 04:15 PM) Could be anything. Players might not be able to run corporations or corpo-nations and thus might have a limit to how much influence they can exert. Still numbers will be a big force which gives SA an advantage but if skill is more a factor then allegiance veterans can unite and give any goons a run for their money as everyone knows goons are just spreadsheet warriors.
I got more info on this recently.
Apparently Elite will run on a p2p network (WTF?), and be instanced if more than 32 players are participating in a given situation. Looks like I was wrong. This will not be another EVE dominated by the goons. I hope they pull that p2p stuff off smoothly.
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:09 am
by phungus420
So apparently the developers (CR) has decided to throw out everything the game was promoted to be, and make the game EVE 2.0 with nothing but capships and players simply point and clicking their capships and AIs/NPCs doing all the fighting. Here's a link to the relevant discussion:
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.c ... nate-sc/p1
Makes me want to cry. I wish I could play allegiance again, but my computer is too good, and just refused to run it
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:50 am
by Bacon_00
Yeah I think you're being a little dramatic
Sounds like they're gonna have NPCs to fill rolls that can also be filled by actual players so that you can fly your capship w/o a bunch of friends online. Makes sense. It doesn't sound like - in any way, shape, or form - that they're ditching the entire game concept and making it just like EVE. At all.
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:07 am
by phungus420
Bacon wrote:QUOTE (Bacon @ Nov 6 2013, 06:50 PM) Yeah I think you're being a little dramatic
Sounds like they're gonna have NPCs to fill rolls that can also be filled by actual players so that you can fly your capship w/o a bunch of friends online. Makes sense. It doesn't sound like - in any way, shape, or form - that they're ditching the entire game concept and making it just like EVE. At all.
I disagree. How will players be able to have competitive PvP gameplay in nulsec space if the optimal strategy is always to get the biggest ship and have the biggest NPC army? Where is there a place for player skill or single seat dogfighting in competitive play with such a system in place?
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:06 am
by Viscur
It's pretty easy to curb the abilities of NPC's such that they're worse than humans. I agree with bacon in that your just being over dramatic. How about waiting for playable content relevant to your interests before crying fowl?
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:31 am
by Raveen
CHICKEN!
TURKEY
GOOOOOSE!