Not sure what the ramifications of this are. Developers can throw a game on Steam Early Access, get people to buy it, and then simply abandon it? No doubt there’s some caveats built into the terms of use that essentially say that Early Access is a gamble, but it’s all more than a little sour at any rate.
I applied yet again for a refund from Steam, by the way. I explained the situation in quite some detail and that BonusXP has simply dropped the game entirely, and that therefore I would never get the game that customers were initially promised. Guess what? Steam again denied me a refund. So that’s really $20 done the drain. I didn’t buy a lot of Early Access games to begin with, but I’ve vowed never to make the same mistake again.
I think I’m going to try emailing Stardock support. I understand things go sideways and they clearly did here with BonusXP/Servo, but Stardock needs to make this right with their customers. I paid them money for a game that I’m not going to ever receive.
Are you serious? That is incredibly shitty of them. I get if they can’t or won’t give $20 back, but a credit towards another Stardock purchase or something along those lines is in order. I’m still hoping @Brad_Wardell or @Island_Dog can comment.
IANAStardockEmployee … but from what little I understand, Stardock completely divested itself of the game, including any profits. IF (big if) that’s the case, they processed the payment but don’t have your money to refund you - that’s all in BonusXP’s bank account (or ledger, at least), instead.
Of course, things are a little more complicated; Stardock has to worry about its reputation of backing up sales made through their site and knowingly took the risk by entering into an agreement with them, but at the same time they don’t want to unjustly enrich the company whose poor game helped put them in this position in the first place. On the back end, we as gamers also knowingly took a risk buying an unfinished product. It would be nice to have that risk alleviated by real guarantees instead of squishy “policies,” but that’s not the reality we live in.
Yeah, I think there’s zero chance any of us are getting our money back and there’s little chance Stardock can or will do anything about this mess. A pity, but such is life.
I asked for a refund back in April before they dumped BonusXP, but Stardock has the following policy:
We do not give refunds on beta, pre-order, or pre-release versions of software or subscription renewals. Refunds are only available for fully-released programs.
Well that sure does work out well for Stardock. What a fool I was for believing Servo would be a sound purchase because big, reliable names like Stardock, Dave Pottinger, and Bruce Shelley were attached to the project.
So, @Brad_Wardell, are you still offering Star Control pre-release access for dissatisfied Servo owners?
I purchased The Servo Founders Edition from Stardock on 4/30/2015 (email receipt below).
Since development has ceased on Servo and I won’t be receiving a full released game I contacted Stardock for a refund. They indicated that they cannot provide a refund for Servo since Stardock and BonusXP ceased their partnership and that I should contact BonusXP for a refund.
Is there a way to receive a refund for Servo from BonusXP now that development has ceased on the project?
Thank your for your time and assistance.
Response from BonusXP Support:
Hello - a fair question. Unfortunately we can only give refunds for the time period that we were the publisher on the title, which was May 2016, because until that point the money for purchases was not coming to us.
Good to clarify that Stardock does indeed have my money. As such, I don’t think a compensation such as a Stardock store credit or a Star Control voucher is unreasonable.
I understand that shit happens, but this is a very poor way of treating your customers that are engaged enough to want to buy in to Early Access and support the game. For my part, it’s already cost them a sale of the Sorcerer King expansion and a Star Control purchase.
According to an invested party, at least. I hear you and agree if this is indeed the case, something should be done on Stardock’s side (at least on an ethics level). But just keep in mind the words you hear from either side come from competing perspectives.
Oh, I agree. I assumed that Stardock, as the publisher, was the one receiving the money originally, so this kind of “confirmed” it for me. But yes, with the caveat you mention.
