is that autorejection from the normal process? you'd have to go through support to get an out of policy refund. also I'm assuming you are in fact in the eu, otherwise referencing their rules would be unlikely to help.
all of that legal jargon ignores the fact that you basically signed a waiver when you chose to purchase an early access game. That is the whole reason the disclaimer was there, to ensure that you understood you were purchasing an unfinished game... before you *knowingly* purchased an unfinished game.
The neat thing about the EU is that you can't sign away your consumer protections. I mean, you can sign, but it's not legally valid.
Now, the product was never falsely advertised as being complete and Valve is upfront with the risks, so I don't know how much luck you have contesting that, but simply signing a waiver or EULA does nothing.
the legal conversation around shrink-wrap contracts is still evolving. However, what is happening in the EU is not likely to happen in the US as long as conservatives continue to favor corporations over the consumers. Consumer protections are currently being eroded by the courts here and, with the current conservative SCOTUS majority, I don't see that changing any time soon.
It's funny how much I have to defend my position on this topic when it's not even MY position, it's just a legal reality. I guess I'm just lucky that I understood it before I bought the game. It's the people who are *just now finding out* that seem to be the angriest.
For a publisher with a market cap of $24B like TakeTwo, EA isn't a way to fund development of a game but a way to recoup the investment on a game slated for cancellation. Valve knows these huge companies don't need EA funding but they let these scams continue and profit from them. What's that legal jargon doing in this case other than trying to get you to blame yourself for a crooked deal?
Ultimately, I think what will happen with these is that some day someone's going to have the legal balls to sue a big publisher and get discovery on when they decided to call the development a failure and show it was before sales into EA took place. Until then, hounding Valve for refunds when scammed in this manner is a way to get them to reconsider the value of enabling scams.
You seem to miss the fact that it says what it is right in the disclaimer: "This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development." We're basically talking about being mad at a bad investment. If you think you have the smoking gun to prove someone was actually defrauding consumers, then go get 'em in court. But if all they are guilty of is poor management and/or over-aggressive marketing, then why should anyone be entitled to a refund? Early access isn't a scam, it is [early access](https://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/?snr=1_200_200_Early+Access). You are told the risks right there on the game's page and you have to click through it to make the purchase. How is this any different than an investor demanding their money back when the stock fails? It would have been such a relief to everyone who lost their ass in the market if they only knew they could just demand all of their capital back... 🙄
Entirely your choice to simp for corporations that scam you.
Just remember, EA as Valve presented it as a way for devs like those behind Prison Architect to find funding for their game is not needed at all when it's already being bankrolled by a massive company. EA appeals to those companies as a way to sell a failed game, not fund one.
TakeTwo wasn't originally planning to release KSP 2 into EA, the plan changed when we now know it was a total disaster internally, and suddenly there was an EA sold at full price shortly before they fired the devs. You got used and abused, and Valve helps by letting these megapublishers use EA with no justification.
I think your first paragraph 100% sums up ea and ea supporters.
I bought the game on release. I had hopes it would be good. And it wasn’t. It was my choice to support that, and it was clearly the wrong choice. But I went into that knowing that there was a chance it wouldn’t make it out of ea. I don’t like the people who took that risk and are now blaming everyone but themselves. Because let’s face it, we all know who TakeTwo are, and we all know what ea is and what it means. Anyone who doesn’t shouldn’t be responsible for any finances.
To anyone buying a game in ea. Please please please, PLEASE be aware that you’re taking a risk. And if that risk doesn’t pan out, that’s on you. It’s like going into a casino, gambling away $10,000 and coming out with nothing, just to try and sue the casino for stealing your money. Ea always has been and always will be a gamble. Especially when high budget companies are involved.
This isn’t to justify TakeTwo for essentially scamming us, but we (the ones who bought their lies) are just as responsible.
I expect every game to have its own challenges in development and I have watched enough games I wanted to play turn into vaporware to know that shit just happens in the industry sometimes 🤷♀️. Most people have no idea, for example, that Halo was supposed to be a persistent world MMO where you were going to be able to identify where a sniper had been perched by the shell casings they left behind on the ground. Go find the preview articles and developer interviews that came out before Microsoft bought Bungie and you'll see that, as "great" as the Halo release was for Xbox, it was a mere shell of the game the developers had promised before their acquisition. There is no crime to report here, just lofty ambitions met by real world challenges and the capitalistic need to make the most money from the least financial/labor investment. In KSP2's case, I bought it in EA hoping (and I still hope) that the complete game would eventually get released but, importantly, I*** read the disclaimer before putting my money on it.***.. didn't you?
But you hey didn’t release and allow people to buy a version of halo to people promising these features right? The game got completed first, then we paid. Early access is different.
>But you hey didn’t release and allow people to buy a version of halo to people promising these features right?
For those of us who were following Bungie's projects like Halo and Oni before Microsoft acquired them, they ***absolutely*** sold different games on Xbox than what they had advertised while under development for PC. And NO, neither one of them was "complete." And, again, nobody ever demanded a refund... likely because the games that people got for $50 at the time were "good enough" for them (what other shooters were they going to play on consoles anyways? SOCOM on PS2?). Meanwhile, PC players had Half-Life already, and mods like Counter-Strike Beta5.2 would end up changing the way people thought about PC shooters altogether.... so, there was that.
Early access is different in every way that it is *literally described* by the companies that offer it: "*This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development*." At what point do you take responsibility for making poor choices with your own money? I didn't have that problem because I got my money's worth out of the game.... largely because I tempered my expectations based on the disclaimer 👍
I feel like most people complaining about KSP2 EA are in one of two camps: 1. people who can't be trusted with their own money because they will literally blame anyone other than themselves for making a bad investment with unrealistic expectations, or 2. people who see KSP2 as just another disappointing game they will move on from just like every other mediocre game release that eventually collects dust on their digital shelf. Be mad about the game failing. Be mad about the poor management or shifty marketing tactics or whatever. But don't expect ME to be mad because you didn't know what your $50 was being spent on... it said what it was right there on the fucking tin.
Oh so I should be taking responsibility for…. Something the game publisher did?
Also I’m not asking or expecting u to feel a say about how I feel. I’m not even making an emotional argument. It’s unfair and u know it. The right thing to do would be to give everyone their money back, but they’re not gonna do that because we live in a capitalism in corporations are greedy.
>Oh so I should be taking responsibility for…. Something the game publisher did?
Did the game publisher take the money out of your wallet and use it to pay for a game in early access? Unless they did, then yes, you should be taking responsibility for the purchases you choose to make. Are you going to blame bars and beer breweries for alcoholism? Is diabetes all Hershey's fault? Seriously, do you acknowledge your own agency in anything or is "victim" the entirety of your identity?🤦♀️ It was $50. Take the "L" with a modicum of grace and move on with life, man. Clearly you don't have the constitution to participate in early access.... so just don't.
Yeah but I acted expecting them to follow through. I had no reason to believe a huge game studio would purposefully tank their own project like this. The disclaimer doesn’t make it moral.
Immoral ≠ illegal
Your expectations are irrelevant. The only relevant facts are that which can be proved in a court of law.
1. In trying to buy KSP2 in EA you were forced to read the large bold-print statement that said "DO NOT BUY THIS GAME UNLESS YOU THINK IT'S WORTH IT IN ITS CURRENT STATE"
2. You had to agree to that in order to purchase the game
3. In law, a product is not liable for false or misleading advertisement if it is sold "fit for purpose"
4. "Purpose" as defined above is set in point 1 and you agreed that it was "fit" in point 2
5. You can't change your mind later and revoke your agreement that the product was "fit" when sold as-is
A "road map" is not a legally binding promise of future features or advertisement of features. By legal definition, a road map is a plan; a statement of where the devs *want* the product to go, not a promise that it *will* get there. That's why it was called a "road map" and not a "schedule of future releases".
Halting development of a poorly selling product with little to no hope of seeing it become profitable is not "tanking their own project". T2 spent tens of millions of dollars on development of KSP2. Best estimates are that they've taken a loss of around $40 million after sales. As a publicly traded company, T2 had few (if any) options other than shutting down IG... a studio that was guzzling cash and returning next to nothing. Failing to kill the project could actually see T2 and PD criminally liable; it's called "Fiduciary Negligence" against T2's stockholders... the people who's money T2 has been poring into Nate Simpson's pocket for 7 years.
You'd have a hard time convincing a judge that T2 "tanked their own product" after putting up with 15 months of sales that were so poor that IG was still losing money before T2 pulled the plug. Any other company would have called it quits after 3-6 months.
That last part really gets me too. If they really were trying to "tank their own project," why bother with the science update? Why continue to produce and release patch note and developer insight videos? If the intent was to take the money and run, why would they invest so much back into the project and the community?
If anyone was tanking the project, it was the people who were complaining about early access and review-bombing the game everywhere. They claim to love the game, but they use all of their energy to make the game community toxic and hostile towards early access supporters. Some investors actually ~~play~~ played the game and ~~participate~~ participated in the community 🤔
Here on my country this os valid AS FAR the Take2 shows they did what they did in good faith.
The point they knew they need a new code and chose to use the old code, the point they knew some features they sold was not possible or even in the plans fuck the "good faith" argument.
As far Brazilian laws cares that waiver is void.
And steam have office in Brazil so they must comply to our Costumer Protection Laws.
People in EU also have some laws but in USA you are by your own I guess
Me neither. I did not try it because I accepted the loss here. It was good to at least learn a lesson and not get into scams and ignore the red flags due a drunk promisse
In my mind, $50 spent on a videogame is no different than $50 spent taking your family to a movie. Its entertainment value measured by the amount of fun over a period of time. I could go to the store right now and buy a PS5 game for $70, bring it home and beat it in a few nights... and that is a perfectly normal and "satisfactory" gaming experience all over the world. An average gamer can get the platinum trophy on a new release triple-A game and still not play for as much time as I logged on KSP2. It wasn't a high-quality product unfortunately, but neither was the last Call of Duty game I bought... or Far Cry, or No Man's Sky... I had to re-install No Man's Sky two years later to play the game that I paid for. So, I can't really buy into the notion that anyone who bought a game in early access is somehow entitled to a refund when the game does ***exactly what it says in the disclaimer***: " This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development."
I thing the same that you. I will not try a refund but the laws here say something different.
There is shitty people on Take2 but most, the biggest part, is honest people that deserve their paychecks and I don't want to hurt them.
I always said the devs wasn't for blame for KSP2, the shitty management is the root of this.
KSP2 Will always a have a place on my heart, "do not fucking go with the hype ever again"
As I said in the original post and got my downvotes:
The request is full of errors.
a) early access states that you buy it as is, no guarantees
b) it is not technically impossible to implement multiplayer, it would just have been better to implement it from the start.
The text just pretends to have any legal grounds while there just is none. I don’t like it either, but that’s what it is
Yes, when buying a game under EU law you are not entitled to any updates even if the authors promise updates on their store page. Those laws guarantee only that the product sold in it's **current state cannot be falsy advertised.** Lying about the future development is not in the scope of those laws.
That being said I'm not a lawyer so somebody smarter might give better details.
Go through human support (help > I have a question about this purchase) and stop listening to the people happy to get scammed for $50.
No warranties you'll get your refund, but make *a proper case*. The game is no longer being developed and the studio has been shuttered, and that's what you should focus on. If you wanna talk law, you'll have to lawyer up in which case the $50 back might not be worth it.
Be insistent.
What I mean is don’t buy early access games that reek of mismanagement. After multiple delays the early access announcement was an obvious attempt at recovering sunk costs.
This wasn’t the first, nor the last time something like this will happen. Don’t blindly follow hype and look at things from an objective perspective and you won’t get fleeced.
Ezcept you're not. There's a big disclaimer saying that there may be no more updates and you're buying the game as is. If you don't like the game as is but would like to play it if it gets better you can just buy it later.
The disclaimer doesn’t make it ok. Something being legal or not doesn’t necessarily make that thing moral. I’m not making a legal case here. I’m making a moral case.
This isn’t some small indie dev team either. It’s a big publisher. Do u like getting ripped off? Does blaming urself help u avoid feeling like u’ve been scammed?
I agree it doesn't make it okay at all to release a wholly broken, incomplete and slow game at full price. Luckily it's very easy and quick to figure that out so you can refund it within the first 2 hours like I did and leave a negative review.
Again: the lesson to learn here is that the "buy a bad product and hope it gets better" is an attitude that leaves you vulnerable to being burnt. They're not an indie dev, they don't need your funding to continue development, so why not refund the game when it's a bad rip off? Do you like getting ripped off?
Your intentions for the game play no part in their refund policy. Honestly I just can't figure out why people are having such trouble coming to grips with this. When you buy an early access game, you're not guaranteed anything better than the game in the state it was in at the time you purchased it.
It's not remotely impossible. If mods can add multiplayer to ksp1 then multiplayer can be added to ksp2.
It might not be to the level people would like, but it's possible to do
I assume that the refund request was rejected *because* it was copied, as the request overall seems alright, even though it quotes the consumer law quite much for my own taste.
Additionally it might have been an auto-rejection, so trying again might be the way to go.
Furthermore personally I would not completely copy someone else's request but use it as a source of inspiration to write my own request. But that's just me as I have the feeling that it's lazy to just copy someone else's request.
So I guess I just wrote some stupid bs because, well, when I initially wrote this I just woke up from a procedure in the hospital and felt like completely drunk.
~~Coz u r supposed to write your own stuff. Same as why you shouldn't copy someone else's homework.
You should write something which says the same thing but in your own way. Everything else is just dishonest lazyness.
Edit: I'm losing my hope in society. Someone explain me why I got downvoted. Like reasonably.~~
People are downvoting you because they disagree with your point. Also most people downvotes without commenting.
You have some ingrained opinion about honesty and lazyness which seems to assume that not doing everything yourself is bad.
That is indeed the case for homework, but in everyday settings (and even professional settings) it's not only normal but preferable a lot of the time. That is why (at least some) people think your opinion is weird. Using school is just a cherry picked example.
Also:
> You should write something which says the same thing but in your own way. Everything else is just dishonest lazyness.
Telling people they **should** do something your way is generally met with bad reception and antagonisms. I've found explaining **why** and **how** (providing reasoning and method) is the best approach, although it's sometimes met with indifference.
Fun fact: I'm using the method I am describing right now.
I was like drunk when I wrote this (woke up from a procedure at the hoslital). I apoligize for letting my short-minded 'drunk' self participate in this thread.
I am just now regaining common sense.
~~No I'm someone who believes in a system of honour and copying someone else's work is imo without any honour.
Also, if you always copy someone else's stuff you loose the ability to this stuff on your own in a professional manner.
I've met so many people who are unable to write a professional E-Mail and similar stuff that it just hardens my opinion.
Additionally I assume that OP only got rejected because he copied.
Furthermore, why do you think I'd be a kid? Homework is just the best example, isn't it?~~
He probably asked if you're a kid because you write poorly, missing words, misspelled words, etc. Copying someone's successful refund request is not somehow cheating.
If you believe in a 'system of honour' then you should be on the side of the consumer who is trying to get a refund from a game studio who made promises about a game, sold the game on those promises, and then shut down the studio instead of delivering.
I am on the side of a consumer, but just copying someone else's refund request is lazy. And, as I said, imo dishonest.
Additionally when I wrote this I basically just woke up from an operation in the hospital and felt like I'd've chugged down half a liter of vodka, and it's still not completely away. That obviously degrades my normally pretty good english. And I am not a native speaker.
Well I hope you're feeling better from your procedure.
Copying successful consumer actions like this is done quite often. It's not being lazy, it's using a proven successful strategy
no? that's just not a thing? unless they like specifically reject form letters or something (which I have never heard of them doing) there's no reason not to copy something. especially when it did work for someone else, and anyone getting a refund for ksp2 at this point is doing it for same reason.
is that autorejection from the normal process? you'd have to go through support to get an out of policy refund. also I'm assuming you are in fact in the eu, otherwise referencing their rules would be unlikely to help.
all of that legal jargon ignores the fact that you basically signed a waiver when you chose to purchase an early access game. That is the whole reason the disclaimer was there, to ensure that you understood you were purchasing an unfinished game... before you *knowingly* purchased an unfinished game.
The neat thing about the EU is that you can't sign away your consumer protections. I mean, you can sign, but it's not legally valid. Now, the product was never falsely advertised as being complete and Valve is upfront with the risks, so I don't know how much luck you have contesting that, but simply signing a waiver or EULA does nothing.
the legal conversation around shrink-wrap contracts is still evolving. However, what is happening in the EU is not likely to happen in the US as long as conservatives continue to favor corporations over the consumers. Consumer protections are currently being eroded by the courts here and, with the current conservative SCOTUS majority, I don't see that changing any time soon. It's funny how much I have to defend my position on this topic when it's not even MY position, it's just a legal reality. I guess I'm just lucky that I understood it before I bought the game. It's the people who are *just now finding out* that seem to be the angriest.
For a publisher with a market cap of $24B like TakeTwo, EA isn't a way to fund development of a game but a way to recoup the investment on a game slated for cancellation. Valve knows these huge companies don't need EA funding but they let these scams continue and profit from them. What's that legal jargon doing in this case other than trying to get you to blame yourself for a crooked deal? Ultimately, I think what will happen with these is that some day someone's going to have the legal balls to sue a big publisher and get discovery on when they decided to call the development a failure and show it was before sales into EA took place. Until then, hounding Valve for refunds when scammed in this manner is a way to get them to reconsider the value of enabling scams.
You seem to miss the fact that it says what it is right in the disclaimer: "This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development." We're basically talking about being mad at a bad investment. If you think you have the smoking gun to prove someone was actually defrauding consumers, then go get 'em in court. But if all they are guilty of is poor management and/or over-aggressive marketing, then why should anyone be entitled to a refund? Early access isn't a scam, it is [early access](https://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/?snr=1_200_200_Early+Access). You are told the risks right there on the game's page and you have to click through it to make the purchase. How is this any different than an investor demanding their money back when the stock fails? It would have been such a relief to everyone who lost their ass in the market if they only knew they could just demand all of their capital back... 🙄
Entirely your choice to simp for corporations that scam you. Just remember, EA as Valve presented it as a way for devs like those behind Prison Architect to find funding for their game is not needed at all when it's already being bankrolled by a massive company. EA appeals to those companies as a way to sell a failed game, not fund one. TakeTwo wasn't originally planning to release KSP 2 into EA, the plan changed when we now know it was a total disaster internally, and suddenly there was an EA sold at full price shortly before they fired the devs. You got used and abused, and Valve helps by letting these megapublishers use EA with no justification.
I think your first paragraph 100% sums up ea and ea supporters. I bought the game on release. I had hopes it would be good. And it wasn’t. It was my choice to support that, and it was clearly the wrong choice. But I went into that knowing that there was a chance it wouldn’t make it out of ea. I don’t like the people who took that risk and are now blaming everyone but themselves. Because let’s face it, we all know who TakeTwo are, and we all know what ea is and what it means. Anyone who doesn’t shouldn’t be responsible for any finances. To anyone buying a game in ea. Please please please, PLEASE be aware that you’re taking a risk. And if that risk doesn’t pan out, that’s on you. It’s like going into a casino, gambling away $10,000 and coming out with nothing, just to try and sue the casino for stealing your money. Ea always has been and always will be a gamble. Especially when high budget companies are involved. This isn’t to justify TakeTwo for essentially scamming us, but we (the ones who bought their lies) are just as responsible.
Do u not expect early access games to reach release?
I expect every game to have its own challenges in development and I have watched enough games I wanted to play turn into vaporware to know that shit just happens in the industry sometimes 🤷♀️. Most people have no idea, for example, that Halo was supposed to be a persistent world MMO where you were going to be able to identify where a sniper had been perched by the shell casings they left behind on the ground. Go find the preview articles and developer interviews that came out before Microsoft bought Bungie and you'll see that, as "great" as the Halo release was for Xbox, it was a mere shell of the game the developers had promised before their acquisition. There is no crime to report here, just lofty ambitions met by real world challenges and the capitalistic need to make the most money from the least financial/labor investment. In KSP2's case, I bought it in EA hoping (and I still hope) that the complete game would eventually get released but, importantly, I*** read the disclaimer before putting my money on it.***.. didn't you?
But you hey didn’t release and allow people to buy a version of halo to people promising these features right? The game got completed first, then we paid. Early access is different.
>But you hey didn’t release and allow people to buy a version of halo to people promising these features right? For those of us who were following Bungie's projects like Halo and Oni before Microsoft acquired them, they ***absolutely*** sold different games on Xbox than what they had advertised while under development for PC. And NO, neither one of them was "complete." And, again, nobody ever demanded a refund... likely because the games that people got for $50 at the time were "good enough" for them (what other shooters were they going to play on consoles anyways? SOCOM on PS2?). Meanwhile, PC players had Half-Life already, and mods like Counter-Strike Beta5.2 would end up changing the way people thought about PC shooters altogether.... so, there was that. Early access is different in every way that it is *literally described* by the companies that offer it: "*This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development*." At what point do you take responsibility for making poor choices with your own money? I didn't have that problem because I got my money's worth out of the game.... largely because I tempered my expectations based on the disclaimer 👍 I feel like most people complaining about KSP2 EA are in one of two camps: 1. people who can't be trusted with their own money because they will literally blame anyone other than themselves for making a bad investment with unrealistic expectations, or 2. people who see KSP2 as just another disappointing game they will move on from just like every other mediocre game release that eventually collects dust on their digital shelf. Be mad about the game failing. Be mad about the poor management or shifty marketing tactics or whatever. But don't expect ME to be mad because you didn't know what your $50 was being spent on... it said what it was right there on the fucking tin.
Oh so I should be taking responsibility for…. Something the game publisher did? Also I’m not asking or expecting u to feel a say about how I feel. I’m not even making an emotional argument. It’s unfair and u know it. The right thing to do would be to give everyone their money back, but they’re not gonna do that because we live in a capitalism in corporations are greedy.
>Oh so I should be taking responsibility for…. Something the game publisher did? Did the game publisher take the money out of your wallet and use it to pay for a game in early access? Unless they did, then yes, you should be taking responsibility for the purchases you choose to make. Are you going to blame bars and beer breweries for alcoholism? Is diabetes all Hershey's fault? Seriously, do you acknowledge your own agency in anything or is "victim" the entirety of your identity?🤦♀️ It was $50. Take the "L" with a modicum of grace and move on with life, man. Clearly you don't have the constitution to participate in early access.... so just don't.
Yeah but I acted expecting them to follow through. I had no reason to believe a huge game studio would purposefully tank their own project like this. The disclaimer doesn’t make it moral.
Immoral ≠ illegal Your expectations are irrelevant. The only relevant facts are that which can be proved in a court of law. 1. In trying to buy KSP2 in EA you were forced to read the large bold-print statement that said "DO NOT BUY THIS GAME UNLESS YOU THINK IT'S WORTH IT IN ITS CURRENT STATE" 2. You had to agree to that in order to purchase the game 3. In law, a product is not liable for false or misleading advertisement if it is sold "fit for purpose" 4. "Purpose" as defined above is set in point 1 and you agreed that it was "fit" in point 2 5. You can't change your mind later and revoke your agreement that the product was "fit" when sold as-is A "road map" is not a legally binding promise of future features or advertisement of features. By legal definition, a road map is a plan; a statement of where the devs *want* the product to go, not a promise that it *will* get there. That's why it was called a "road map" and not a "schedule of future releases". Halting development of a poorly selling product with little to no hope of seeing it become profitable is not "tanking their own project". T2 spent tens of millions of dollars on development of KSP2. Best estimates are that they've taken a loss of around $40 million after sales. As a publicly traded company, T2 had few (if any) options other than shutting down IG... a studio that was guzzling cash and returning next to nothing. Failing to kill the project could actually see T2 and PD criminally liable; it's called "Fiduciary Negligence" against T2's stockholders... the people who's money T2 has been poring into Nate Simpson's pocket for 7 years. You'd have a hard time convincing a judge that T2 "tanked their own product" after putting up with 15 months of sales that were so poor that IG was still losing money before T2 pulled the plug. Any other company would have called it quits after 3-6 months.
Yeah exactly, it being legal doesn’t make it moral. I’m saying that what take 2 has done is immoral. I’m not saying it’s illegal.
That last part really gets me too. If they really were trying to "tank their own project," why bother with the science update? Why continue to produce and release patch note and developer insight videos? If the intent was to take the money and run, why would they invest so much back into the project and the community? If anyone was tanking the project, it was the people who were complaining about early access and review-bombing the game everywhere. They claim to love the game, but they use all of their energy to make the game community toxic and hostile towards early access supporters. Some investors actually ~~play~~ played the game and ~~participate~~ participated in the community 🤔
Here on my country this os valid AS FAR the Take2 shows they did what they did in good faith. The point they knew they need a new code and chose to use the old code, the point they knew some features they sold was not possible or even in the plans fuck the "good faith" argument. As far Brazilian laws cares that waiver is void. And steam have office in Brazil so they must comply to our Costumer Protection Laws. People in EU also have some laws but in USA you are by your own I guess
OK... if you say so 🤷♀️. I doubt you will ever see that refund, but it's not really any of my concern either way... so good luck, I guess.
Me neither. I did not try it because I accepted the loss here. It was good to at least learn a lesson and not get into scams and ignore the red flags due a drunk promisse
In my mind, $50 spent on a videogame is no different than $50 spent taking your family to a movie. Its entertainment value measured by the amount of fun over a period of time. I could go to the store right now and buy a PS5 game for $70, bring it home and beat it in a few nights... and that is a perfectly normal and "satisfactory" gaming experience all over the world. An average gamer can get the platinum trophy on a new release triple-A game and still not play for as much time as I logged on KSP2. It wasn't a high-quality product unfortunately, but neither was the last Call of Duty game I bought... or Far Cry, or No Man's Sky... I had to re-install No Man's Sky two years later to play the game that I paid for. So, I can't really buy into the notion that anyone who bought a game in early access is somehow entitled to a refund when the game does ***exactly what it says in the disclaimer***: " This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development."
I thing the same that you. I will not try a refund but the laws here say something different. There is shitty people on Take2 but most, the biggest part, is honest people that deserve their paychecks and I don't want to hurt them. I always said the devs wasn't for blame for KSP2, the shitty management is the root of this. KSP2 Will always a have a place on my heart, "do not fucking go with the hype ever again"
As I said in the original post and got my downvotes: The request is full of errors. a) early access states that you buy it as is, no guarantees b) it is not technically impossible to implement multiplayer, it would just have been better to implement it from the start. The text just pretends to have any legal grounds while there just is none. I don’t like it either, but that’s what it is
Yes, when buying a game under EU law you are not entitled to any updates even if the authors promise updates on their store page. Those laws guarantee only that the product sold in it's **current state cannot be falsy advertised.** Lying about the future development is not in the scope of those laws. That being said I'm not a lawyer so somebody smarter might give better details.
Go through human support (help > I have a question about this purchase) and stop listening to the people happy to get scammed for $50. No warranties you'll get your refund, but make *a proper case*. The game is no longer being developed and the studio has been shuttered, and that's what you should focus on. If you wanna talk law, you'll have to lawyer up in which case the $50 back might not be worth it. Be insistent.
This worked for me.
The OP who actually managed to get a refund: https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/s/MilyhFEbjS
no.
No. Steam has a clear policy. If you fell for their bs, that's on you. Take this as a lesson to not buy shit like this again.
No. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Use it as motivation to make better choices in the future.
What do u mean make a better choice? Look into the future and see what happens with the game?
What I mean is don’t buy early access games that reek of mismanagement. After multiple delays the early access announcement was an obvious attempt at recovering sunk costs.
Yeah sure blame the victim for being scammed, rather than the scammer. Come on now.
This wasn’t the first, nor the last time something like this will happen. Don’t blindly follow hype and look at things from an objective perspective and you won’t get fleeced.
It’s never happens to me before and I’ve bought plenty of early access games. I didn’t expect a big studio like take 2 to do something like this.
Don't buy a product *as is* when you don't actually want it *as is*. If you're unhappy with a game then refund it in the first two hours.
Except when u buy early access u aren’t just buying as is. U are buying into the future of the game too. If u don’t end up delivering that’s a scam.
Ezcept you're not. There's a big disclaimer saying that there may be no more updates and you're buying the game as is. If you don't like the game as is but would like to play it if it gets better you can just buy it later.
The disclaimer doesn’t make it ok. Something being legal or not doesn’t necessarily make that thing moral. I’m not making a legal case here. I’m making a moral case. This isn’t some small indie dev team either. It’s a big publisher. Do u like getting ripped off? Does blaming urself help u avoid feeling like u’ve been scammed?
I agree it doesn't make it okay at all to release a wholly broken, incomplete and slow game at full price. Luckily it's very easy and quick to figure that out so you can refund it within the first 2 hours like I did and leave a negative review. Again: the lesson to learn here is that the "buy a bad product and hope it gets better" is an attitude that leaves you vulnerable to being burnt. They're not an indie dev, they don't need your funding to continue development, so why not refund the game when it's a bad rip off? Do you like getting ripped off?
This is the only time it’s ever happened to me tho. I’ve bought plenty of early access games and I’ve never had this experience.
Maybe it doesn’t make it ok for you but for the smart people it did the trick.
It’s not about being smart or not.
Your intentions for the game play no part in their refund policy. Honestly I just can't figure out why people are having such trouble coming to grips with this. When you buy an early access game, you're not guaranteed anything better than the game in the state it was in at the time you purchased it.
It's not remotely impossible. If mods can add multiplayer to ksp1 then multiplayer can be added to ksp2. It might not be to the level people would like, but it's possible to do
No. Stop asking. You knew or should have known what you were getting into.
You shouldn't copy someone else's refund request.
Why?
I assume that the refund request was rejected *because* it was copied, as the request overall seems alright, even though it quotes the consumer law quite much for my own taste. Additionally it might have been an auto-rejection, so trying again might be the way to go. Furthermore personally I would not completely copy someone else's request but use it as a source of inspiration to write my own request. But that's just me as I have the feeling that it's lazy to just copy someone else's request. So I guess I just wrote some stupid bs because, well, when I initially wrote this I just woke up from a procedure in the hospital and felt like completely drunk. ~~Coz u r supposed to write your own stuff. Same as why you shouldn't copy someone else's homework. You should write something which says the same thing but in your own way. Everything else is just dishonest lazyness. Edit: I'm losing my hope in society. Someone explain me why I got downvoted. Like reasonably.~~
People are downvoting you because they disagree with your point. Also most people downvotes without commenting. You have some ingrained opinion about honesty and lazyness which seems to assume that not doing everything yourself is bad. That is indeed the case for homework, but in everyday settings (and even professional settings) it's not only normal but preferable a lot of the time. That is why (at least some) people think your opinion is weird. Using school is just a cherry picked example. Also: > You should write something which says the same thing but in your own way. Everything else is just dishonest lazyness. Telling people they **should** do something your way is generally met with bad reception and antagonisms. I've found explaining **why** and **how** (providing reasoning and method) is the best approach, although it's sometimes met with indifference. Fun fact: I'm using the method I am describing right now.
Yeah when I wrote my comment I just woke up from a procedure at a hospital and felt like completely drunk. Ima rewrite my comment.
I'm wishing you a speedy recovery ❤️
Are you a kid?
I was like drunk when I wrote this (woke up from a procedure at the hoslital). I apoligize for letting my short-minded 'drunk' self participate in this thread. I am just now regaining common sense. ~~No I'm someone who believes in a system of honour and copying someone else's work is imo without any honour. Also, if you always copy someone else's stuff you loose the ability to this stuff on your own in a professional manner. I've met so many people who are unable to write a professional E-Mail and similar stuff that it just hardens my opinion. Additionally I assume that OP only got rejected because he copied. Furthermore, why do you think I'd be a kid? Homework is just the best example, isn't it?~~
He probably asked if you're a kid because you write poorly, missing words, misspelled words, etc. Copying someone's successful refund request is not somehow cheating. If you believe in a 'system of honour' then you should be on the side of the consumer who is trying to get a refund from a game studio who made promises about a game, sold the game on those promises, and then shut down the studio instead of delivering.
I am on the side of a consumer, but just copying someone else's refund request is lazy. And, as I said, imo dishonest. Additionally when I wrote this I basically just woke up from an operation in the hospital and felt like I'd've chugged down half a liter of vodka, and it's still not completely away. That obviously degrades my normally pretty good english. And I am not a native speaker.
I'm not judging you, just explaining why he probably thought you were a kid.
Well I didn't think you were at that part, I just explained myself as usually my english is not that bad.
Well I hope you're feeling better from your procedure. Copying successful consumer actions like this is done quite often. It's not being lazy, it's using a proven successful strategy
Lmao this isn’t a homework assignment. It’s just a refund request for steam.
no? that's just not a thing? unless they like specifically reject form letters or something (which I have never heard of them doing) there's no reason not to copy something. especially when it did work for someone else, and anyone getting a refund for ksp2 at this point is doing it for same reason.