Star Citizen: Fear, Uncertainty, and Debt

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Star Citizen: Fear, Uncertainty, and Debt

Agrajag: Jan 21, 2006; gat dang thats hot

Octopode posted:

In a reasonably similar form as they have described, yes.

hahahaha keep on believin' you poor deluded fool you

did you also double down on bying more .jpgs in solidarity with crobizzle?

# ? Oct 3, 2015 17:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 17:55

OhDearGodNo: Jan 3, 2014

Octopode posted:

They did, actually. Check your email for the weekly update sent out on February 6th, which contains a link to this Pledge Store Update:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14473-RSI-Pledge-Store-Updat
Which clearly indicates everyone will be required to accept a new ToS.

The original ToS and the new one both included clear opt-out terms already when you agreed to them, and by doing so, you would have retained your original refund ability. The requirement to outline what parts is changed is fulfilled by presenting them to you when you agree to the new terms, which they did.

First, checked my email. Nothing within weeks of February 6th

However, I clicked on the link you provided:

quote:

As we announced two weeks ago, RSI is moving into Europe with the formation of Roberts Space Industries International Ltd. To accomplish this change, we have made a major revision to the pledge store�s functionality, which includes the addition of an international store run by RSI International. As a result of this store change, all backers will be required to accept a new ToS, Privacy Policy, and EULA when connecting to Star Citizen game or pledging through the store (these will vary depending on which store you access.)

Also, the RSI International pledge store will begin charging VAT on orders placed by backers in the European Union. In order to reduce the impact of the VAT changes for users paying in Euros, we are keeping the dollar-to-euro exchange rate steady rather than matching it to the recent loss of value to the USD. While it may become necessary to adjust the exchange rate in the future, the immediate impact should will be positive for many European backers and offset a large part of the VAT tax! While this does not impact backers now being able to pay in GBP, the launch of the international store does mean they will no longer be charged a foreign transaction and currency conversion fees.

You forgot the part that states "Changes to the TOS that require agreement must outline the changes."

The fact that this is all about VAT and not about removing consumer protection regarding the release date says a whole lot. In fact, it shows more evidence that this was done deceptively- that they intentionally did not provide two things required by the FTC:

1 - Notice that the consumer can disagree with the change and cancel their license/purchase/order
2 - Indication on what was changed in the ToS

In addition, this was placed on a separate page.

CIG was required to notify all users of the ToS change. They were required to outline what changed in the ToS. They were required to make the agreement to the ToS to be located on the same page as the ToS, to include stating they removed the option for a refund due to a missed release date.

In other words, it needs to be clickwrapped- having a checkbox on a different page that says "I agree to the Terms of Service by clicking here" has been tossed out by courts over and over again.

You keep burying CIG more and more, and I thank you for it. I figured I'd toss most of this thread today at Derek Smart. I'll be sure to list you as a contributing source.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 17:53

CrazyLoon: Aug 10, 2015; "..."

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

http://www.beyondthehorizonradio.com/

We're bitching about SC. Musical interlude included 3's The Man Who Sold the 'Verse and now Cult of Personality.

BluestreakBTHR posted:

Where the hell have you been?

Same as me, but with a different group of chums retreated away from the insanity. Hell, he's a lot more of a Star Citizen than me atm. Account burned, trashed and full refund better be coming in that 5-10 day timeframe they gave me.

So to sum up in the 1,000 posts since I took a nice break from all this: Escapist completely blasts any possibility of this being some psyops poo poo, the ever faithful immediately move their goalposts, CIG trots out their token black guy, not very effective since Sandi also apparently wants shaven vagoos (an unforgivable crime in my eyes), they decide to take the site off archive.org for fear of being called on their bullshit anymore and hoping folks didn't save any screenies from before (lol)...

...thread...never change until the end.

CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Oct 3, 2015

# ? Oct 3, 2015 17:54

OhDearGodNo: Jan 3, 2014

sorla78 posted:

I am not disagreeing at all, but if you are all about annonymous sources and protecting them from disclosure because they want to remain annonymous, you should never approach any potential sources, publically, via twitter to the world. Especially if you are running with an article later on that uses ex-employees as sources.

You're assuming she's one of the anonymous sources, based on absolutely nothing.

This is the same philosophy with the SC cult's witch hunt. It's just as stupid as reddit with the Boston bomber debacle.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 17:55

AP: Jul 12, 2004; One Ring to fool them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to milk them all
and pockets fully line them; Grimey Drawer

Octopode posted:

Does the service have to include all potential elements to begin the delivery date counter?

Absolutely yes, not only that but all the potential elements could be exactly as described, delivered on time and you'd still have 14 days to say, "no thanks, money back please". The reason why Tank Boy Ken will quote something from Germany and I'll quote something from UK and they'll match is that this is European wide legislation. It's a lot simpler to draw up a law covering different languages to stop consumers getting ripped off if they get 14 days to inspect whatever it is and the ability to say no and still get a refund without even having to say why they aren't happy.

The EU gets a bad rap for a lot of stuff but on consumer protection it's 1st class.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 17:57

Octopode: Sep 2, 2009; No. I work here. I manage operations for this and integration for this, while making sure that their stuff keeps working in here.

Kimsemus posted:

So if you're saying that if ISIS sends me a twitter message trying to recruit me, and then sets off a roadside bomb, then it must have been me that did it?

Because that's your logic.

No, your shitposting involves reading half a wikipedia page on contract law and then wasting 3 pages proving how incorrect you are.

Sorry if I'm going to take the opinions of hundreds of companies operating under these principles with many court cases examining the question of digital licensure over your questionable legal expertise, who made an rear end of himself the last time legal arguments were discussed in a Star Citizen thread

Fil5000 posted:

What would it take to make you think it wasn't going to happen? I ask only because everything I've seen and played so far makes me think if we're lucky we'll get a single player game that's quite fun. I've not seen anything to suggest that the multiplayer stuff is going to be anything other than a mess.

I answered this yesterday--a stopping of identifiable progress towards the promised end state.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 17:57

sorla78: Oct 11, 2012; EAT THE PAIN AWAY!

Kimsemus posted:

You really can't attack The Escapist for a lack of qualified or questionable leadership, without attacking CIG, which has blatantly less qualified and questionable leadership.

For what it's worth, Escapist is probably one of the more respected (lol) gaming journalism (L O L) websites out there, and is heads and tails above Gawker owned sited (Kotaku, io9, etc) which are blatantly and un-apologetically skewed and have an obvious agenda.

So, nice straw man's argument, let me go ahead and burn that one down for you before you feel like you've made a valid inference.

Yes, it's awful, and ED is pointless and stupid from a PVP standpoint for having a similar mechanic.

The reason why I brought it up is not because of CIG, obviously there's something off there. But more about the driving motive behind the "investigative" piece from the escapist. Depending on if your goal is pageviews or the wellbeing of employees, backer funds or crowdfunding project, you handle matters very differently. Seeing the parental struture behind this all and the background of the managing editor, I doubt that we have any journalistic standards and principles in place, that aren't set primarily to protect them from litigation but not so much to establish quality journalism.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:00

thatguy: Feb 5, 2003

Octopode posted:

We all have our own version of shitposting. Mine just doesn't involve the same poo poo repeated ad nauseum from six threads ago.

This is me posting ad nauseum about why you're wrong about TOS agreements.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:01

Agrajag: Jan 21, 2006; gat dang thats hot

Octopode posted:

Sorry if I'm going to take the opinions of hundreds of companies operating under these principles with many court cases examining the question of digital licensure over your questionable legal expertise, who made an rear end of himself the last time legal arguments were discussed in a Star Citizen thread

Octopode posted:

In a reasonably similar form as they have described, yes. .

You have absolutely no credibility. I also now believe you are not operating at full mental capacity.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:01

Kimsemus: Dec 4, 2013; by Reene; Toilet Rascal

Octopode posted:

Sorry if I'm going to take the opinions of hundreds of companies operating under these principles with many court cases examining the question of digital licensure over your questionable legal expertise, who made an rear end of himself the last time legal arguments were discussed in a Star Citizen thread

I answered this yesterday--a stopping of identifiable progress towards the promised end state.

You are just spewing garbage out of your face. Like I know all the normal, well adjusted people here must all be in on a giant conspiracy to discredit CIG and make you feel bad, but really. You've spent now 4 pages writing these super retarded quasi-legal contract law posts and it's poo poo literally coming out of your rear end and blowing brown all over this thread. Which is why no one is agreeing with you and people are actively asking you why you're being so autistic.

So stop being so autistic.

sorla78 posted:

The reason why I brought it up is not because of CIG, obviously there's something off there. But more about the driving motive behind the "investigative" piece from the escapist. Depending on if your goal is pageviews or the wellbeing of employees, backer funds or crowdfunding project, you handle matters very differently. Seeing the parental struture behind this all and the background of the managing editor, I doubt that we have any journalistic standards and principles in place, that aren't set primarily to protect them from litigation but not so much to establish quality journalism.

I agree that pretty much all games "journalism" is a joke, but I don't think it detracts that The Escapist article rings true in some ways, and is probably resonating with people and their suspicions, which is why it's gained so much traction, and why Croberts wrote an incredibly long, impassioned reply trying to refute it. Could part of their motivation be getting site traffic? Of course, but no news entity runs itself on altruism alone.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:03

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

AP posted:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/14724-The-Kickstarter-Burger

Some alternate scripts for more comics along this vein:

Want a burger for $5?
Sure, here's a $10, keep the change!
<dollar signs in eyes>
Hey everybody, step right up! Look at this burger concept art, yours for only $10. Wait, no, $50! Also if you pledge $100 you get free hamburgers for life!

Want a burger for $5?
Sure, I'll take 5000! Here's $25k!
[6 months later, burger stand is now a cattle ranch]
What's going on? Where are my burgers?
I didn't how to make 5000 burgers. This seemed like a good first step!
...
Also I kinda spent all the money on these cows. Wanna invest in a meat processing plant?

Want a filet mignon steak for $5?
What, really? That seems awfully cheap.
Nope, real filet mignon steaks!
[12 months later]
Where's my filet mingon?
Well, I know we asked for $5, but turns out those are really expensive. Who knew?! Here's a can of dogfood instead!

Want a burger for $5?
Sure, here you go.
YOINK!
[next panel burger man has run away, burger stand collapses revealing that it's a fake 2d hollywood set]

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:05

Truga: May 4, 2014; Lipstick Apathy

I hope octopode keeps posting, because it's certainly making people annoyed for some reason.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:05

Octopode: Sep 2, 2009; No. I work here. I manage operations for this and integration for this, while making sure that their stuff keeps working in here.

OhDearGodNo posted:

First, checked my email. Nothing within weeks of February 6th

However, I clicked on the link you provided:

You forgot the part that states "Changes to the TOS that require agreement must outline the changes."

The fact that this is all about VAT and not about removing consumer protection regarding the release date says a whole lot. In fact, it shows more evidence that this was done deceptively- that they intentionally did not provide two things required by the FTC:

1 - Notice that the consumer can disagree with the change and cancel their license/purchase/order
2 - Indication on what was changed in the ToS

In addition, this was placed on a separate page.

CIG was required to notify all users of the ToS change. They were required to outline what changed in the ToS. They were required to make the agreement to the ToS to be located on the same page as the ToS, to include stating they removed the option for a refund due to a missed release date.

In other words, it needs to be clickwrapped- having a checkbox on a different page that says "I agree to the Terms of Service by clicking here" has been tossed out by courts over and over again.

You keep burying CIG more and more, and I thank you for it. I figured I'd toss most of this thread today at Derek Smart. I'll be sure to list you as a contributing source.

Once you logged in following the ToS change, you were presented with the full new ToS again when you agreed to them, fulfilling the presentation requirements.

As for the FTC page you keep citing, once again, that's specifically describing rules for specific deliverable goods and merchandise, not digital licenses, for which the rules are not the same and are much more complicated.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:05

sorla78: Oct 11, 2012; EAT THE PAIN AWAY!

Kimsemus posted:

So if you're saying that if ISIS sends me a twitter message trying to recruit me, and then sets off a roadside bomb, then it must have been me that did it?

Because that's your logic.

No, your shitposting involves reading half a wikipedia page on contract law and then wasting 3 pages proving how incorrect you are.

If you are a journalist and you are working on a piece that builds on information from ex-employees and there might be a very good chance that they insist on remaining annonymous, I think that the better idea is to call them by phone - and not loving tweeting them. Is this loving amateur hour?

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:07

thatguy: Feb 5, 2003

Truga posted:

I hope octopode keeps posting, because it's certainly making people annoyed for some reason.

Annoying people is pretty hard. I'm here to learn from the best.

Space Court.

Anders is scared.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:08

OhDearGodNo: Jan 3, 2014

Octopode posted:

Sorry if I'm going to take the opinions of hundreds of companies operating under these principles with many court cases examining the question of digital licensure over your questionable legal expertise, who made an rear end of himself the last time legal arguments were discussed in a Star Citizen thread

LAWRENCE FELDMAN v GOOGLE, INC

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0411P.pdf

quote:

Users would have had to click onto a hyperlink, which would take the user
to a separate webpage entitled �License & Support Agreements.� Id. at 23-24. Only on that
webpage was a user informed that the user must agree to the license terms before downloading a
13
product. Id. at 24. The user would have to choose from a list of license agreements and again
click on yet another hyperlink in order to see the terms and conditions for the downloading of
that particular software. Id.
The Second Circuit concluded on those facts that there was not sufficient or reasonably
conspicuous notice of the terms and that the plaintiffs could not have manifested assent to the
terms under these conditions.

Requiring the user to click to an entirely separate agreement and consent to it has been legally shown to not confirm assent.

The only cases where assent was legally supported is when the clickwrap was directly on the page. For example, when you have to scroll through the actual text and click ok.

Also, this is the legal way when ToS is changed:

https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/policies/terms/changes/

http://help.soundcloud.com/customer/portal/articles/1380159-terms-and-conditions-changes

https://www.facebook.com/about/terms-updates

Simply changing a few sentences once every two years (very important ones) does not satisfy a reasonable expectation of assent.

On top of this, although the original ToS allowed refunds, if there is one single case of CIG saying "We do not offer refunds" between August 29th 2013 and February 1 2015, they could be held liable as a breach of their own ToS.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:08

Truga: May 4, 2014; Lipstick Apathy

thatguy posted:

Annoying people is pretty hard. I'm here to learn from the best.

Space Court.

Anders is scared.

Same

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:08

EminusSleepus: Sep 28, 2015

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:08

Cowman: Feb 14, 2006; Beware the Cow

so from what I've gathered, Star Citizen is basically just EVE with some lovely facebook games thrown in. Why do people want this trash?

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:09

A Neurotic Jew: Feb 17, 2012; by exmarx

sorla78 posted:

The reason why I brought it up is not because of CIG, obviously there's something off there. But more about the driving motive behind the "investigative" piece from the escapist. Depending on if your goal is pageviews or the wellbeing of employees, backer funds or crowdfunding project, you handle matters very differently. Seeing the parental struture behind this all and the background of the managing editor, I doubt that we have any journalistic standards and principles in place, that aren't set primarily to protect them from litigation but not so much to establish quality journalism.

so what specifically about the article do you consider "unethical"?

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:09

Paladinus: Jan 11, 2014; heyHEYYYY!!!

If this is what it takes, I will complete Star Citizen myself and make it real for everyone who stayed strong in their faith.

code:


program StarCitizen;

var
  budget: longint;

begin

  budget:= 90000000;
  budget:= inc(budget);

end.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:10

Octopode: Sep 2, 2009; No. I work here. I manage operations for this and integration for this, while making sure that their stuff keeps working in here.

OhDearGodNo posted:

LAWRENCE FELDMAN v GOOGLE, INC

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0411P.pdf

Requiring the user to click to an entirely separate agreement and consent to it has been legally shown to not confirm assent.

The only cases where assent was legally supported is when the clickwrap was directly on the page. For example, when you have to scroll through the actual text and click ok.

Also, this is the legal way when ToS is changed:

https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/policies/terms/changes/

http://help.soundcloud.com/customer/portal/articles/1380159-terms-and-conditions-changes

https://www.facebook.com/about/terms-updates

Simply changing a few sentences once every two years (very important ones) does not satisfy a reasonable expectation of assent.

On top of this, although the original ToS allowed refunds, if there is one single case of CIG saying "We do not offer refunds" between August 29th 2013 and February 1 2015, they could be held liable as a breach of their own ToS.

Already covered this: they presented the new full ToS in a clickwrap exactly as you're saying was required upon your next access of the covered service following the change.

As for being in violation of the ToS: them being in violation with one individual does not invalidate the ToS for everyone. It's a separate agreement for each customer.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:11

Agrajag: Jan 21, 2006; gat dang thats hot

Cowman posted:

so from what I've gathered, Star Citizen is basically just EVE with some lovely facebook games thrown in. Why do people want this trash?

dreams my friend dreams and something about wing commander i suppose

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:11

Truga: May 4, 2014; Lipstick Apathy

TOS is just there to discourage people from doing thing. If they go to court, they'll get to do thing 99% of the time, but 99% people don't go to court over :20bux:

.

It really is that simple. "I want refund" "A-ha, but you accepted this TOS by logging in" "mkay :smith:

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:12

Dusty Lens: Jul 1, 2015; All Glory unto the Stimpire. Give up your arms and legs and embrace the beautiful agony of electricity that doubles in pain every second.

Guys I just ordered a pizza and they said it'd be at my house in 30 minutes but I just checked my order because it's running late and now it says to receive my pizza I have to accept an updated TOS which says that they're delivering it in 90 minutes I just want to know what my legal rights are before I proceed.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:13

Agrajag: Jan 21, 2006; gat dang thats hot

Truga posted:

TOS is just there to discourage people from doing thing. If they go to court, they'll get to do thing 99% of the time, but 99% people don't go to court over .

It really is that simple. "I want refund" "A-ha, but you accepted this TOS by logging in" "mkay "

as i understand it aren't there a lot who went well above whatever minimum price it is?

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:14

Tank Boy Ken: Aug 24, 2012; J4G for life; Fallen Rib

Octopode posted:

Once you logged in following the ToS change, you were presented with the full new ToS again when you agreed to them, fulfilling the presentation requirements.

As for the FTC page you keep citing, once again, that's specifically describing rules for specific deliverable goods and merchandise, not digital licenses, for which the rules are not the same and are much more complicated.

Clicking a ToS doesn't waive your customer rights in the EU. Just saying.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:14

Communist Thoughts: Jan 7, 2008; Our war against free speech cannot end until we silence this bronze beast!

Do you have to pay for each module or something? I saw someone talking about the FPS module being $5 more than they said it would. Are they selling people the "game" peicemeal or something?

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:14

sorla78: Oct 11, 2012; EAT THE PAIN AWAY!

OhDearGodNo posted:

You're assuming she's one of the anonymous sources, based on absolutely nothing.

This is the same philosophy with the SC cult's witch hunt. It's just as stupid as reddit with the Boston bomber debacle.

The point that this assumption wasn't made by me, it was made by the brown sea - and obviously that connection was made, I just picked it up and find it extremely unprofessional to approach people that way. If i can see the issues when you are working on a piece that is sourced on statements by ex-employees and you are the editor of that article and you are tweeting an ex-employee that just got fired if he has time for a chat. Well, I don't know, maybe Generation Y has become retarded thanks to social media.

What's so hard to actually call these people? Oh, I have to put some time into researching their contact details? She is on loving linked-in as well. So you can direct message her there. NO - let's go the lazy way and use twitter.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:14

Octopode: Sep 2, 2009; No. I work here. I manage operations for this and integration for this, while making sure that their stuff keeps working in here.

Truga posted:

TOS is just there to discourage people from doing thing. If they go to court, they'll get to do thing 99% of the time, but 99% people don't go to court over .

It really is that simple. "I want refund" "A-ha, but you accepted this TOS by logging in" "mkay "

Actually, they're there to make you agree to binding arbitration rather than being able to pursue a court case for most things to begin with.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:15

CrazyLoon: Aug 10, 2015; "..."

Truga posted:

TOS is just there to discourage people from doing thing. If they go to court, they'll get to do thing 99% of the time, but 99% people don't go to court over .

It really is that simple. "I want refund" "A-ha, but you accepted this TOS by logging in" "mkay "

It's still mind-boggling to see non-EU people argue over TOS like it means something. But having talked with some 'Muricans about it, from what I've heard from their side of things I guess it really loving does in the good ole US of A where the law has kinda gone berserk.

Or who the hell knows what it is, can we just go back to arguing about which burger is better maybe?

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:15

Agrajag: Jan 21, 2006; gat dang thats hot

Tank Boy Ken posted:

Clicking a ToS doesn't waive your customer rights in the EU. Just saying.

take into account that he beleives the game will come out according to crobizzle's vision (whatever that may be at the moment)

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:15

EminusSleepus: Sep 28, 2015

Dusty Lens posted:

Guys I just ordered a pizza and they said it'd be at my house in 30 minutes but I just checked my order because it's running late and now it says to receive my pizza I have to accept an updated TOS which says that they're delivering it in 90 minutes I just want to know what my legal rights are before I proceed.

I hope you opted for cash-on-delivery!

else

not much we can do but eat the pizza

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:15

Dusty Lens: Jul 1, 2015; All Glory unto the Stimpire. Give up your arms and legs and embrace the beautiful agony of electricity that doubles in pain every second.

Cowman posted:

so from what I've gathered, Star Citizen is basically just EVE with some lovely facebook games thrown in. Why do people want this trash?

EminusSleepus posted:

I hope you opted for cash-on-delivery!

else

not much we can do but eat the pizza

I believe so much in the pizza being delivered that I just ordered a second pizza.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:15

Paladinus: Jan 11, 2014; heyHEYYYY!!!

Dusty Lens posted:

Guys I just ordered a pizza and they said it'd be at my house in 30 minutes but I just checked my order because it's running late and now it says to receive my pizza I have to accept an updated TOS which says that they're delivering it in 90 minutes I just want to know what my legal rights are before I proceed.

Accept and buy pictures of toppings while you wait.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:15

Kimsemus: Dec 4, 2013; by Reene; Toilet Rascal

Tank Boy Ken posted:

Clicking a ToS doesn't waive your customer rights in the EU. Just saying.

It doesn't in the US either, companies just rely on people being lazy or not having the funds to fight it out.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:16

Octopode: Sep 2, 2009; No. I work here. I manage operations for this and integration for this, while making sure that their stuff keeps working in here.

Tank Boy Ken posted:

Clicking a ToS doesn't waive your customer rights in the EU. Just saying.

Yeah, like I said, the EU / other countries with actual consumer protection laws are a whole different beast. In the US, however, the law is heavily, heavily favored towards "if you agree to something with the merchant you're pretty much hosed."

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:16

OhDearGodNo: Jan 3, 2014

Octopode posted:

Once you logged in following the ToS change, you were presented with the full new ToS again when you agreed to them, fulfilling the presentation requirements.

As for the FTC page you keep citing, once again, that's specifically describing rules for specific deliverable goods and merchandise, not digital licenses, for which the rules are not the same and are much more complicated.

No, you were presented with a link to the new ToS, with the agreement on a separate page. I just showed you legal precedent to highlight that that does not equal assent.

"As a result of this store change, all backers will be required to accept a new ToS, Privacy Policy, and EULA when connecting to Star Citizen game"

If customer A never buys anything from the store but logged into the game, the ToS would not apply, nor would agreeing to a new EULA apply to the ToS. It would again not qualify as affirmation.

If Customer B melts an existing digital good for another and clicks the ToS, it does not constitute assent as the ToS was located on a separate page as the agreement.

All of this doesn't even matter because you still don't understand that the Terms of Service are what the business wants and not what the customer is legally bound by. They can throw whatever they want into the ToS, they can throw things out. However doing so does not indemnify them of liabilities not expressed within, nor does it obligate someone under other local statutes to be bound by them.

Just stop because you're wrong by a million lesnicks.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:16

Kimsemus: Dec 4, 2013; by Reene; Toilet Rascal

Octopode posted:

Yeah, like I said, the EU / other countries with actual consumer protection laws are a whole different beast. In the US, however, the law is heavily, heavily favored towards "if you agree to something with the merchant you're pretty much hosed."

Wrong again.

God drat.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 17:55

Skoll: Jul 26, 2013; Oh You'll Love My Toxic Love; Grimey Drawer

Nice to see so many accredited experts in Games Law itt.

# ? Oct 3, 2015 18:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Star Citizen: Fear, Uncertainty, and Debt

«‹›746 »