EULA and TOS

Where can I find a text copy of the EULA and TOS that is displayed after SotA login?

 

Kind of sucks that the 'cost accounting' info that's mentioned by the TOS, is only made available in the unlikely event the game isn't delivered. In any other non-crowd sourced funding scenarios that info would be required by the investors before dishing out cash during funding rounds. Public companies even release annual 10-K reports for shareholders. I love the idea of crowd funding, but I don't feel like the investor is truly being represented very well in all of this. Maybe one day crowd funding platforms like KickStarter will craft better initial agreements between investors and companies.

 

Well, technically crowdfunding is not investment but pre-purchase. It should be somewhere in between, it has risks of investing and rewards of pre-purchase, but it is much closer to pre-purchase than to investment. We pay them for products, not shares in the company.

 

Crowd-funding is almost totally unregulated, and it should remain so. Anyone who's "investing" here to make a profit, good luck.

This is a community funding project, not an investment. If it works, we all get to play. If it doesn't, we lose all the money we put in except the memories (which are quite valuable for me so far!).

I wouldn't put a dollar into Portalarium (not that it's open to investment) because it's early-round venture capital and high risk. But I'm happy to pay for the services that SotA is providing. This is pay-to-play, not investment. We are buying items, not stock.

I think it sucks that our legal system effectively forces a GAME like this to post disclaimers/waivers to ward off potential litigation.

 

I agree with ya that from our perspective, that is the user, this is something between investment and prepurchase. But from the company's perspective, and the perspective of how our money is being used, I think the funds we're providing lean more towards investment than prepurchase. All the same risks are there. To your point though, the KickStarter funding goals were met so one might easily argue that there is now confidence that the project will succeed and thus the money paid by players is now basically equalvent to prepurchasing the game. In the case of SotA though I would attribute that more to the awesome dev team. In the general senses though I think that might be a tad bit foolhardy.

 

wrong. It's donation. there is no expected ROI nor should there be any expected delivery.

this is 100% what kickstarter, the funding used on here, flat out says.

KS is exactly that, a way to help kickstart an idea, not buy stuff or get a retirement plan.

 

Clearly I disagree with this.

Straw man argument. Total misrepresentation of my point. Never did I say anything about making a profit, and no, it's not implied.

Agreed the memories are great so far. "Community funded project" sure sounds rosy until you read the fine print. I suppose most people are oblivious to the legal documents they agree to. That's a shame.

There is a lot of more tangential comments here that are either just your general feelings or a misrepresentation of my point. I don't think it sucks companies have to put disclaimers. Not quite sure why you're interested in protecting the company. As best I can, I have self interest with regards to my money. There is plenty of precedence for LLCs to completely walk away from a failed business with little to no consequence. They have enough protection.

The tone of your comments has me believe that you feel I'm attacking Portalarium. I'm not. I too am enjoying the experiences so far. In my mind that doesn't preclude me from discussing things of interest to me that come directly from the TOS.

 

Actually no, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission ASIC, have come out and said quite clearly that crowd funding like kickstarter is a purchase and therefore falls under the power of the ACCC and the protections of the Australian Consumer Law. Kickstarter itself states in its TOS that it is a legally binding contract between the person starting the kickstarter and the pledges and that if they don't deliver then they are liable to return the money

 

That is because THEY want to regulate it because of people getting scammed from lack of knowledge about what they are doing, and then complaining to the government to regulate it.

If there were not dips running around the world, who knew how to read and what they were doing, no, KS is NOT a store.

 

Tarsin,

I've asked RG and Darkstarr in various dev hangouts if any of the money collected so far would be taken as profits, and both have said emphatically, "No."

Darkstarr recently said that ALL (100%) of funds collected before the official launch of E1 would be used towards the development of E1. Which both surprised me, and really made me think that this was a team that was sincerely attempting to deliver the best product their budget would allow.

Having said that, we have no way of knowing how much of a salary RG and the rest of the team take, or what travel expenses are like for them. But it's worth noting that in a few of the live streams it appeared that RG and Darkstarr might actually be sharing a room together at a less than spectacular hotel. It's also been mentioned that their office accommodations are really on the cheap (including non-working coffee makers and gross microwaves).

Could there be more transparency? Sure. But I'm more than comfortable that the money is being used wisely. I'm far more concerned about things I see as design flaws (for example, the combat system) than I am the finances. But I'm still interested to hear any concerns you have concerning how the money is being spent, what were you looking for specifically?

 

I'm not going to go tit for tat on this. You can have the last word if you want it.

But the whole reason the legal system exists is not because stupid people are stupid, it's because greedy people are greedy, and bad people are bad. I think most people would agree that the amount of disclaimers and semantics involved in just about anything now days is crazy stuff. But it doesn't mean that there's not a good reason for it to be there. History tells us that if you don't regulate commerce, then the people that can hurt collective society will. Humanity is really jacked up like that. So for me, I'd much rather have over regulation than under regulation. People are not to be trusted with anything.

 

Woof, and I thought I was cynical =p

 

Wow, how shocking that people would have expectations to recive what they pay for. If you have so much money you can afford to throw it away for nothing then you are free to contact RG and give him money directly or better yet how about you give it to a worthy cause like MSF rather than to a for profit company. The whole point of a capitalistic system is that you get something for your money and Kickstarter have written there TOS to ensure that people actually get what they have paid for, same from ASIC who don't concider this to be an investment and therefore it's a purchase and so the ACCC and the ACL exist to protect buyers

 

Drocis Fondorlatos, thanks for the comments! In truth I don't have any specific concerns regarding how the money is being spent. Sure, like you said there aspects of the design I think could be improved, but I personally invested my money in this game specifically because of the people involved in development and for the most part I trust they have me, the player, in their best interest.

That being said, me the investor/backer I would ideally like to see more transparency in both the health and financial state of the company; any company I throw my money at with no promise of return! There is so much emotion driving the SotA community, I think a lot of us just want to view everything as being peachy. For me, I'd love to see something like a 10-K-lite report. Nothing crazy, just a document going over financials, operational, r&d, development, facility, and overhead costs, projections in financial goals, user goals, product diversity. This isn't uncommon for startups to produce this kind of data; it's used for IPO and buy out scenarios.

 

I stop reading there because that is the entire problem.

You are not PAYING FOR ANYTHING. You are donating money to KICKSTART an idea.

That is the whole problem in a nutshell with people expecting something from a project that is entirely built behind text that reads: IT MAY FAIL AND NOTHING EVER DELIVER.

Reading comprehension is a real thing.

And while Baron makes a good point as the "WHY"

It works entirely on both sides. Greedy people, who expect something from their clearly labelled donation, want it regardless of the information being blasted at them.

The sure fire way to fix the problem? STOP SENDING MONEY.

Go buy something, from a REAL store, elsewhere, with all the consumer protection it brings, rather than help destroy new, helpful avenues of funding for things that may never come to pass in reality for lack of funds, because people can't read and comprehend.

Simple.

 

I hear you. I guess I almost don't want to know how much cash they've spent so far. If it's anything over 1 million, there would be so many people second guessing this project it wouldn't even be funny. Then on the other side of the house you'd have people asking why they haven't spent all of it, as if that would somehow code the game and deliver the product sooner.

Really, even qualitative statements about cash flow are going to have the same problems. It's kind of a no win situation.

It's worth mentioning that the devs have also recently used the word "investors" when talking about development. At the time, and I'm sorry I can't remember the exact context, it sure sounded like there were actual investors in this game beyond pledge donations. So I'm not sure what that means exactly, or if it even means what we think it means (I personally think that they found real investors to put money down now so that they can get a return on their investment after launch when Portalarium takes profits). But who knows? (not us)

 

Sorry but your wrong, your entitled to your opinion of course but it's thankfully for all kickstarter projects WRONG. If it was accurate then none of the projects would be funded because why would anyone give money to a FOR PROFIT COMPANY for no return. I assume you have no pledge level then because you didn't buy anything and will be buying the game on public release when it is released?

 

That is a weird straw man you have there.

I cant pledge anything or donate money because I get nothing in return and the company is a for profit entity?

I didn't buy anything. I pledged. If the game crashed and burned tomorrow, yes, I would be upset, but more so for its failure, not because I didn't get my virtual house.

You seem to care more about the virtual and physical rewards, which again, third time, is the entire problem with people thinking KS is a store.

I pledged for the company and its vision, not the non-existent tripe - that just happens to be something they decided to give me for my devotion to their idea.

And let me just add something else: You might be arguing with the wrong person, because I have also donated TIME and RESOURCES to make the vision/game better.

Radio? Asset Review site? 3 loose scripts for Unity in the dev+ area?

 

Tarsin I wasn't intending to target your OP, but making a more general statement about the legal and investment nature of KS donations and pledges (by the way I'm not sure KS donations are really any different than pledges, from a legal or ethical standpoint).

Look, I'm a recovering lawyer. The main reason, aside from the tedium, why I don't practice any more is because I loathe the way American law is used to create unjust and perverse outcomes.

Anyone who donated to KS, or has made a pledge, is taking a financial risk. Yes.

But the idea that anyone would have a legal remedy against Portalarium for failing to deliver a game, absent some sort of fraudulent/criminal activity, is offensive to me. So, aside from curiosity, why do we need to read the fine print in the EULA/TOS?

I bought my knight marshal pledge. If the game tanks, it tanks. Fire and forget.

 

I guess it's just a personal preference to read the fine print of the EULA/TOS. I actually find it a little disturbing most people gloss over legal documents they agree to. Anything that has potential to be legally binding I at least give it one full read. Call me obsessive, but it's important to me that I understand what I'm agreeing to. In this case, I just see room for (general) improvement regarding what information is/isn't available to we, the backers.