Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Phoenix Point Worse than Metro Exodus exclusive EGS deal...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by LordBanagar View Post
    Lol I rest my case on this one, keep playing your semantics, you're really convincing
    You rest your case? Sounds more like you're dodging the question, is that because you can't answer it? It was a simple question that requires a simple answer. Tell me what they said that they knew to be untrue at the time. Do that or concede they didn't lie.
    Iconoclast

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Aidy View Post

      You rest your case? Sounds more like you're dodging the question, is that because you can't answer it? It was a simple question that requires a simple answer. Tell me what they said that they knew to be untrue at the time. Do that or concede they didn't lie.
      "At the time" yeah keep hanging to that, because they decided to betray their backers trust knowingly. Knowing perfectly that if they did what they promised "at the time", would in practice become a lie. You don't want me to call it a lie cause of semantics? lol, fine call them betrayers then, that fits your definition of semantics right?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by LordBanagar View Post
        "At the time" yeah keep hanging to that
        I will, because that is the definition of a lie

        verb

        to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
        to express what is false; convey a false impression.
        Originally posted by LordBanagar View Post
        You don't want me to call it a lie cause of semantics?
        No, I don't want you to call it a lie because it isn't a lie, as per the definition of a lie (see above). Haven't I already told you that basing arguments on your interpretation of what a word means is a bad idea?

        Originally posted by LordBanagar View Post
        fine call them betrayers then
        You could call them that, yes, but not liars. At least we got there in the end
        Iconoclast

        Comment


      • #34
        betrayers then, I'm fine calling them that if it suits you

        Comment


        • Justince
          Justince commented
          Editing a comment
          Wow that added so much to the conversation. Boy I'm glad you guys cleared that up. Hey what do you know, Epic still looks just as shitty as before.

      • #35
        Epic Games has been datamining users' Steam user information

        Comment


        • #36
          I wasn't going to comment on this but the lack of knowledge when it comes to law is hilarious.
          Kickstarter contracts are pretty well solid as long as there isn't a solid statement on "when" and "where" said project is completed or distributed. Period.
          Phoenix said backers would get the game, but there was never a hard timeline of when which protects them from any potential lawsuit. You see this currently going on with Star Citizen, literally the largest kickstarter game in history with no solid end date that was continuously pushed back content and their roadmap in its several years of development. They could stop working on the game tomorrow and launch it incomplete and nothing could happen to them legally as the contracted backers OPTED INTO indemnifies them from any prosecution as long as said product is delivered. The contract, and I use the word contract because that's essentially what it is, mentions nothing about receiving completed product or when said product would be received.
          Phoenix is doing a smaller scaled version of the same thing. They're being nice enough to offer refunds, but they're under no obligation to from a legal perspective. Backers will get the game on Steam when it is ready on Steam which is one year after it launches on Epic. They didn't lie about it not coming to Steam, they simply pushed back the timetable for Steam which is perfectly legal.
          It's shitty business, but there's nothing illegal about it. It's also not anti-consumer, it's the free market. You don't need to buy the product.

          Comment


          • #37
            Do you know what I find hilarious? There is this tiny detail, and it is that this was not on Kickstarter lol. This project was funded on www.fig.co and it has 2 options, you can back it up as a gamer(pretty much as Kickstarter) or you can invest in the project expecting a return from it. And one would assume that any investor can argue that this move from the developers can hurt their investment since the game not being available in any other platform but the EGS could potentially hit sales in a big way. I'm not saying they do, but they certainly have grounds to at least get some legal counsel if they decide that's the case

            Comment


            • #38
              One things is abundantly clear to me: Epic doesn't give a damn about the gamer, and I'm not going to support such a company, regardless of their datamining, and ill-equipped launcher.
              And I'm on the fence about not supporting developers either who sign up for the exclusivity deal. Not even after the deal expires. Because it shows a clear lack of consideration about the consumer on their part as well.

              I was naive, I thought they are going to make an effort after they announced they are implementing new features for the launcher. But a whole lot of concerning information has been revealed since then. And of course more backroom deals.
              Click here for all my game reviews. or Click here for my PC hardware history from 1991

              Comment


              • #39
                Originally posted by LordBanagar View Post
                Do you know what I find hilarious? There is this tiny detail, and it is that this was not on Kickstarter lol. This project was funded on www.fig.co and it has 2 options, you can back it up as a gamer(pretty much as Kickstarter) or you can invest in the project expecting a return from it. And one would assume that any investor can argue that this move from the developers can hurt their investment since the game not being available in any other platform but the EGS could potentially hit sales in a big way. I'm not saying they do, but they certainly have grounds to at least get some legal counsel if they decide that's the case
                That might be the case if they were buying shares as there is a legal framework around that. The fact that fig refers to it as "investment" doesn't create any legal liability, it's just a word they chose to use. Also Epic no doubt paid them handsomely, they wouldn't have done this if it wasn't in their interests financially so it has probably improved the finances of the company, not harmed it.
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • #40
                  Originally posted by Disgustipated View Post
                  I wasn't going to comment on this but the lack of knowledge when it comes to law is hilarious.
                  Kickstarter contracts are pretty well solid as long as there isn't a solid statement on "when" and "where" said project is completed or distributed. Period.
                  Phoenix said backers would get the game, but there was never a hard timeline of when which protects them from any potential lawsuit. You see this currently going on with Star Citizen, literally the largest kickstarter game in history with no solid end date that was continuously pushed back content and their roadmap in its several years of development. They could stop working on the game tomorrow and launch it incomplete and nothing could happen to them legally as the contracted backers OPTED INTO indemnifies them from any prosecution as long as said product is delivered. The contract, and I use the word contract because that's essentially what it is, mentions nothing about receiving completed product or when said product would be received.
                  Phoenix is doing a smaller scaled version of the same thing. They're being nice enough to offer refunds, but they're under no obligation to from a legal perspective. Backers will get the game on Steam when it is ready on Steam which is one year after it launches on Epic. They didn't lie about it not coming to Steam, they simply pushed back the timetable for Steam which is perfectly legal.
                  It's shitty business, but there's nothing illegal about it. It's also not anti-consumer, it's the free market. You don't need to buy the product.
                  Well the problem here is that they said in the FAQ it would be "launched" on Steam/GoG. So while its true that by being nebulous with a release date gives them some protection in a scenario like with Star Citizen they kind of shot themselves in the foot when they then decided to "launch" it on Epic only and then later release on Steam/GoG. Because they said it would be "launched" on Steam/GoG they have created a much more legally unstable/questionable situation which is probably why they are offering refunds.

                  Comment


                  • #41
                    Ouch

                    That has got to suck
                    My Profile > Edit Settings > Account Tab > Scroll down to "Conversational Detail Options" > Click the Link > Eat a cookie

                    Please support my friend: https://www.patreon.com/mutantdonkey

                    Comment


                    • #42
                      pretty sad that we can't trust crowdfunding as much as before.
                      Snapshot games may have gained great amounts of money from Epic but if the community doesn't forget this lack of honor (I hope people doesn't forget this easily) then they are screwed on the long run cause next time they release a game people will be like:
                      "Oh interesting ga..."
                      "..."
                      "It's from Snapshot Games?"
                      "The company that betrayed all the backers from the crowd funding?"
                      "So are going to b..."
                      "NOPE!"

                      Comment


                      • #43
                        It's a heated topic, but please remember to keep things civil. Thanks.
                        Mod

                        Comment


                        • #44
                          Originally posted by Aidy View Post

                          That might be the case if they were buying shares as there is a legal framework around that. The fact that fig refers to it as "investment" doesn't create any legal liability, it's just a word they chose to use. Also Epic no doubt paid them handsomely, they wouldn't have done this if it wasn't in their interests financially so it has probably improved the finances of the company, not harmed it.
                          They call them game shares which is funny, I too don't believe they give you actual shares per se. But in the faq regarding investment they treat them pretty much like shares going as far as to actually calling them game shares, even going to announce in the dividends part that "In accordance with Delaware law, Fig’s board of directors must periodically declare the dividends to be made.

                          https://help.fig.co/hc/en-us/categor...ment-Questions

                          Comment


                          • #45
                            Originally posted by LordBanagar View Post

                            They call them game shares which is funny, I too don't believe they give you actual shares per se.
                            They call them "Shares" with a capital S; "Fig Game Shares" - "Shares" is part of the name that they call them, they're not actual shares.

                            https://help.fig.co/hc/en-us/article...res-to-others-

                            Iconoclast

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X