The toxicity is really uncalled for

#1

I’m going to throw in my opinion on the toxsisity right now, it is really un called for.

Look ok what snapshot did was crummy, not an argument here, but as a company it was a good move, and no they did not break their word , your still going to get your steam and gog keys,

But death threats( yes death threats UV can confirm and he didn’t even dicided to go with epic) constant complaining, are un needed.

Snapshot games have been more transparent than most other companies that have pulled this and the like. They have apologized for it, refusing to play stupid on hard questions, and even have giving every one a extra reward for those that put up with it( and if we go with Xcom 2 dlc standards for major content wich Julian had confirmed to be large ended dlc packs adding aliens, tech, threats and underwater missions. You could be getting around 40$ worth of content. )

And if your still not satisfied they have made it available to refund ,

I for one am looking forward to playing phionix point from the epic store. Then one year later move to steam.

10 Likes
#2

I was with you until you said they did not break their word. By your rationale if they delivered the Steam/GoG keys ten years from now, they would still have kept their word.

5 Likes
#3

True but their is a difference to something complicating that promise but still caring it out and indefinitely pushing back with no intention to Carry it out, they could have just said we will go with epic if you want it get it from epic, like metro did.

#4

It’s still a broken promise in my eyes. Or a lie by omission. Or verbal judo. I don’t necessarily disagree with your other points but I do find this one to be flat out wrong.

3 Likes
#5

They broke their word, end of story. the FAQ on Fig (where the crowdfunding happened) clearly stated that the game would be available on Steam and GoG AT LAUNCH.

Then a year and a half later, Gollop changed his mind (presumably because he has burned through most of the cash he has collected, and needed funding from somewhere).

What made it even worse (if that is at all possible), is a post saying “hey, even if everyone refunds, we’ll still be in the black”. That is so incredibly unprofessional that i am at a loss for words.

4 Likes
#6

Oh god, they changed their mind about game launcher for a year. BETRAYALLLLLLLLLL!!! Burn in hell Snapshot with special place in there for people with name Julian, aaaaaahhhhhhhhaahahahah!

Someone asked about size of this new funding and they answeared. Big deal.

4 Likes
#7

When you take money to force people onto a new launcher (after first having collected money from the crowd with lofty promises in order to get the game off the ground in the first place)… then yes… betrayal is the only word i find appropriate.

3 Likes
#8

I wish you that you won’t experience any other kind of betrayal then. :wink:

1 Like
#9

What UV said is fine. Chances are they can’t tell us just how much they got due to the NDA, so UV gave us a rough estimate for how much they were paid, which was what someone asked. I think they got paid closer to $3-3.5m given how much the game had already raised and that they would still have a buffer to keep making content even with 100% refund.

There’s many things to be upset about, but an answer that gives a rough idea to a question that they likely can’t directly answer isn’t one of them imo.

6 Likes
#10

I automatically thought of Julius Ceaser. Et tu Brut?:grinning:

1 Like
#11

Yeah, that’s the one niggle I have with this post too.

#12

Fig is offering direct refunds, and by rights what they did could be legally actionable had Snapshot not offered refunds to begin with. I managed to get my refund from Snapshot actioned through Paypal (because there’s no way on gods green earth I was going to put my banking details in the hands of a third party).

In a couple of days I’ll have my money back and Gollop can DIAF for all I care considering how Epics launcher is now considered by any standard as Malware.

Signing up to a platform that mines users computers is essentially stating you’re fine with peoples’ data being up for sale. That’s not a principle I will ever back.

3 Likes
#13

Good for you. You don’t have to explain yourself. Have a good day.

1 Like
#14

How did you manage to get them to refund via PayPal? Fig did that?

#15

If you’re within 180 days, you can file a claim through PayPal (Not Received or Significantly Not as Described in this case, although I still don’t remember if SNAD works for digital goods) and they will handle it. Since I doubt Snapshot would be disputing these claims at the moment, they can just approve them (fastest) or let them unanswered (and PP will refund the buyer by default if the seller doesn’t say anything).

#16

Neither of the above.

I contacted Snapshot directly at the Orders@ email and requested they put the refund through paypal as I purchased through Xsolla and I didn’t consider Transferwise an acceptable offer of refund under the UK Consumer Rights Act.

That was sufficient to get me an offer of the refund being handled through PayPal. Problem solved.

Money arrived in my account today.

#17

I’m glad this worked out for the better. No, really, no sarcasm here, I’m just glad the money was refunded. It’s as simple as “I don’t like this, this was not what was promised, I would like my money back”. And there you go.

(And it’s gotta be said… Calvin & Hobbes is one of the best literary works ever…)

#18

@Spark1

We will see how this works out.
What would I have done?

  • start negotiations with epic
  • announce that the game has not enough funding and you are searching for solutions
  • watch the backers cry
  • give hope and say that there might be “Epic” saving the game
  • agree to epic to sell my soul
  • release on Epic

They had the balls to skip that charade and just tell their backers that they are no longer interested in their money.

However, this earned my mistrust for Snapshot. (As would the version I would have done. But it would be a lot harder to justify that cause a lot of people would believe that the “game would have been saved”)

They are on par with “EA” and “UBI” in my book now.

#19

but what if Epic would find out about that “backers cry”? They would have better leverage in negotiations. :wink: This is not so simple. :stuck_out_tongue:

#20

Toxicity… I’m very mindful of that term since it’s being thrown around like a handball by whomever for whatever reason. Someone who makes death threats over a stupid game is mentally deranged so let’s call it as it is. Mental sickness.

That being said, the Epic story was a broken promise from my perspective, but they offered refunds and that is fine because I’d rather pull my money back and wait an year after launch and see what they are made of then be sorry for supporting another catastrophe of a game.