Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Star Citizen

2025-05-14T07:33:23Z

Enforcer: /* Ingame Moderation Inconsistencies */ Included the HuskyPie incident.

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = Star Citizen
| Release Year = 2012-present
| Product Type = Digital Game Content
| In Production = Yes
| Developer = Cloud Imperium Games
| Official Website = https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
|Logo=Star citizen logo.png}}

Star Citizen, a crowdfunded space simulation game, has sold numerous digital products and features since 2012 that remain undelivered as of 2024. Key items include ships costing hundreds of dollars, a modding platform, and private server capabilities, pets, and much more, all of which continue to be marketed and sold despite no implementation timeline.

==Background==
Star Citizen began as a Kickstarter campaign in 2012 by Chris Roberts, creator of Wing Commander. The project promised a combination of space combat, trading, and exploration alongside a single-player campaign called Squadron 42. The campaign raised $2.1 million initially, with total crowdfunding exceeding $600 million by 2024 through continuous sales of digital ships and game packages.

==Undelivered Product Sales==
Cloud Imperium Games (CIG) has maintained a practice of selling digital products years before implementation under the guise of calling it a 'concept', with several items or 'pledges' remaining undelivered after a decade:

===Ships and Vehicles===
*Idris-M: Originally sold in 2012 for $1,000, military variant, undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Idris-P: Civilian variant sold since 2012 for $1,250, price increased to $1,500, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Banu Merchantman|Merchantman: First sold in 2013 for $250 (original concept sale), currently priced at $600.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman</ref>
*Orion: First sold in 2014 for $325 (original concept sale), industrial mining vessel remains undelivered, current price $575.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Orion</ref>
*Genesis Starliner: Sold in 2015 for $400 (original concept sale), passenger transport remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner</ref>
*Endeavor: Made available in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), limited availability since with price increases.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Endeavor</ref>
*Hull D: Sold since 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), price increased in subsequent sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D</ref>
*Hull E: Offered in 2015 for $550 (original concept sale), increased to $950 in later sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E</ref>
*Crucible: Sold in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), repair ship remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible</ref>
*Pioneer: Marketed in 2017 for $850 (original concept sale), base-building vessel remains in concept phase<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer</ref>
*Drake Kraken: First sold in 2018 for $1,400 (original concept sale), capital ship with privateer variant sold for $2,000, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken</ref>
*Railen: First sold in 2021 for $200 (original concept sale), remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Railen</ref>

Note: All listed vessels have been sold multiple times since their original concept sales, often at increased prices. Many remain in concept phase or early development despite years passing since initial sales.

==Consumer Protection Concerns==
The practice of selling digital products years before implementation has raised significant consumer protection concerns. Despite marketing these items as 'pledges' or 'concepts', CIG continues to charge real money for digital goods with no firm delivery timeline or guarantee of implementation. The company's terms of service have been modified multiple times since 2012, changing the conditions under which refunds are offered and altering customer rights regarding purchased content. Many backers who attempted to obtain refunds for undelivered products have reported difficulties, with CIG often citing their evolving terms of service as justification for denial. The lack of concrete development schedules for sold items, combined with regular price increases for unreleased content, has led to criticism from consumer advocacy groups and gaming industry observers. Additionally, the practice of artificial scarcity through "limited-time sales" of digital products that don't yet exist has been questioned as potentially misleading marketing.
[[File:ASA Response .png|thumb|A response letter from the Advertising Standards Authority affirming that Cloud Imperium Games likely had breached the Advertising Rules. ]]
In 2021, following a consumer complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) by a member of the /r/starcitizen_refunds community<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/pfgchs/uk_advertising_standards_agency_rule_concept_ship/</ref>, Cloud Imperium Games was required to modify their concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined they violated Advertising Rules in the UK. The issue centered on emails promoting concept ships without clear disclosure that the advertised vessels did not yet exist in-game. In response, CIG added a standardized disclaimer to their marketing emails stating that concept ships are "being offered here as a limited vehicle concept pledge". The disclaimer also notes that purchasers receive a temporary "loaner vehicle" until their bought ship becomes available.

==Development Status Contradictions==
A notable point of controversy surrounds CIG's inconsistent messaging regarding Star Citizen's development status. When players report persistent bugs, server issues, or gameplay problems, CIG and community moderators frequently emphasize the game's "alpha" status as justification for these issues, suggesting the project is still in early development. However, when faced with questions about delayed delivery of promised features or criticism of continuous sales practices, the company often presents Star Citizen as a delivered, playable product that is simply receiving ongoing development. This contradiction has been particularly evident in legal contexts, where CIG has defended against refund requests by asserting that the base game has been "delivered" to backers, while simultaneously using the alpha designation to deflect criticism about long-standing technical issues and missing core gameplay features promised in the original crowdfunding campaign. The dual narrative has led to growing skepticism within the gaming community about the project's actual development status and CIG's transparency regarding project completion criteria.

==Development Communication Issues==
Squadron 42's "Answer the Call 2017" marketing campaign ended in failure when CIG did not deliver the promised single-player campaign, despite extensive marketing featuring a star-studded cast including Mark Hamill, Gary Oldman, and Gillian Anderson<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42</ref>. Following community backlash over the missed release, CIG announced plans for a new project roadmap in late 2017. However, this evolved into what became known as the "Roadmap to the Roadmap," with a release view being finally available in March of 2018. When finally delivered, the new roadmap consistently showed missed deadlines and delayed features. Rather than address these delays, CIG ultimately discontinued much of the roadmap's progress tracker in February 2022, dismissively labeling concerned backers as "roadmap watchers" <ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022</ref> and claiming that showing development progress "puts too much attention on features that had a high probability of shifting around" and was "a distraction both internally at CIG and within the community". This marked a significant departure from their previous promises of transparency and was met with substantial community backlash, particularly from backers who had used the roadmap to track progress on features they had purchased years earlier.

==Consumer Response==
[[File:-r-Starcitizen Corruption.png|thumb|CIG Employee Zac Preece asking in a private discord server for a post to be removed from the /r/starcitizen reddit. This post by the account of the reddit moderator Ian (MrRiceGuy) didn't violate the rules yet proceeded to remove said post anyway. ]]
The prolonged development timeline and sales practices have led to organized consumer response movements, notably the /r/starcitizen_refunds subreddit community with over 18,000 members.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/</ref>. This subreddit serves as a platform for dissatisfied backers seeking refunds, documenting development delays, and tracking changes to terms of service that affect consumer rights. Discussion of these issues on official channels is heavily restricted, with CIG's Spectrum forum rules explicitly prohibiting posts deemed to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD)<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities</ref> and the discussion of support tickets / moderation decisions.

While unofficial communities like the /r/starcitizen subreddit and Discord server exist, these spaces are heavily moderated to prevent discussion of negative sentiment due to strong ties between their moderators and Cloud Imperium Games employees.

As a result, /r/starcitizen_refunds has become the primary platform for maintaining records of unfulfilled promises and providing guidance for others seeking refunds.

==Ingame Moderation Inconsistencies==
[[File:Example of Exessive Griefing .png|thumb|An example of a user being banned for the term 'Excessive Griefing' and being directed to review the terms of service and rules of conduct for a term that doesn't exist. ]]
The moderation practices of Cloud Imperium have drawn criticism for inconsistent and opaque enforcement. Users can receiving bans for "excessive griefing" despite this term having no defined parameters in either the Terms of Service<ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos</ref> or Rules of Conduct<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct</ref> documentation. Users receive these bans without stated reasons, requiring them to file support tickets to learn of their alleged infractions. This lack of transparency and disconnect between written policies and enforcement has created significant uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable behavior.

Star Citizen's Persistent Universe or PU for short is an open sandbox that allows players to engage in PVP activities such as Piracy and Bounty Hunting yet activity participating in these activities could lead a player to being banned for 'excessively' engaging in this activity under the guise of it being 'harassment' to do so.

=== The HuskyPie Incident ===
On April 21, 2025, Cloud Imperium Games banned player HuskyPie for 17 days after German content creator Karolinger falsely accused him of stream sniping. The incident occurred in Pyro, a lawless system explicitly for PvP combat. HuskyPie was completing a mercenary mission when he encountered and killed Karolinger twice at Bueno Ravine. Despite having no evidence beyond the streamer's accusations, CIG suspended HuskyPie's account. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0eipkl66-8 As documented in an episode of the "Griefers Pub" podcast], HuskyPie was forced to appeal by providing his own game logs proving he was already at the location on mission objectives and had never watched Karolinger's stream. CIG eventually overturned the ban but offered no apology or explanation. This case directly demonstrates preferential treatment for content creators and shows how regular players can be banned for engaging in permitted gameplay while content creators receive special protection from legitimate game mechanics.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Star Citizen]]

Star Citizen

2025-02-17T00:02:10Z

Enforcer: Fixing a typo

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = Star Citizen
| Release Year = 2012-present
| Product Type = Digital Game Content
| In Production = Yes
| Developer = Cloud Imperium Games
| Official Website = https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
}}

Star Citizen, a crowdfunded space simulation game, has sold numerous digital products and features since 2012 that remain undelivered as of 2024. Key items include ships costing hundreds of dollars, a modding platform, and private server capabilities, pets, and much more, all of which continue to be marketed and sold despite no implementation timeline.

==Background==
Star Citizen began as a Kickstarter campaign in 2012 by Chris Roberts, creator of Wing Commander. The project promised a combination of space combat, trading, and exploration alongside a single-player campaign called Squadron 42. The campaign raised $2.1 million initially, with total crowdfunding exceeding $600 million by 2024 through continuous sales of digital ships and game packages.

==Undelivered Product Sales==
Cloud Imperium Games (CIG) has maintained a practice of selling digital products years before implementation under the guise of calling it a 'concept', with several items or 'pledges' remaining undelivered after a decade:

===Ships and Vehicles===
*Idris-M: Originally sold in 2012 for $1,000, military variant, undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Idris-P: Civilian variant sold since 2012 for $1,250, price increased to $1,500, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Banu Merchantman|Merchantman: First sold in 2013 for $250 (original concept sale), currently priced at $600.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman</ref>
*Orion: First sold in 2014 for $325 (original concept sale), industrial mining vessel remains undelivered, current price $575.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Orion</ref>
*Genesis Starliner: Sold in 2015 for $400 (original concept sale), passenger transport remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner</ref>
*Endeavor: Made available in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), limited availability since with price increases.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Endeavor</ref>
*Hull D: Sold since 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), price increased in subsequent sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D</ref>
*Hull E: Offered in 2015 for $550 (original concept sale), increased to $950 in later sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E</ref>
*Crucible: Sold in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), repair ship remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible</ref>
*Pioneer: Marketed in 2017 for $850 (original concept sale), base-building vessel remains in concept phase<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer</ref>
*Drake Kraken: First sold in 2018 for $1,400 (original concept sale), capital ship with privateer variant sold for $2,000, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken</ref>
*Railen: First sold in 2021 for $200 (original concept sale), remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Railen</ref>

Note: All listed vessels have been sold multiple times since their original concept sales, often at increased prices. Many remain in concept phase or early development despite years passing since initial sales.

==Consumer Protection Concerns==
The practice of selling digital products years before implementation has raised significant consumer protection concerns. Despite marketing these items as 'pledges' or 'concepts', CIG continues to charge real money for digital goods with no firm delivery timeline or guarantee of implementation. The company's terms of service have been modified multiple times since 2012, changing the conditions under which refunds are offered and altering customer rights regarding purchased content. Many backers who attempted to obtain refunds for undelivered products have reported difficulties, with CIG often citing their evolving terms of service as justification for denial. The lack of concrete development schedules for sold items, combined with regular price increases for unreleased content, has led to criticism from consumer advocacy groups and gaming industry observers. Additionally, the practice of artificial scarcity through "limited-time sales" of digital products that don't yet exist has been questioned as potentially misleading marketing.
[[File:ASA Response .png|thumb|A response letter from the Advertising Standards Authority affirming that Cloud Imperium Games likely had breached the Advertising Rules. ]]
In 2021, following a consumer complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) by a member of the /r/starcitizen_refunds community<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/pfgchs/uk_advertising_standards_agency_rule_concept_ship/</ref>, Cloud Imperium Games was required to modify their concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined they violated Advertising Rules in the UK. The issue centered on emails promoting concept ships without clear disclosure that the advertised vessels did not yet exist in-game. In response, CIG added a standardized disclaimer to their marketing emails stating that concept ships are "being offered here as a limited vehicle concept pledge". The disclaimer also notes that purchasers receive a temporary "loaner vehicle" until their bought ship becomes available.

==Development Status Contradictions==
A notable point of controversy surrounds CIG's inconsistent messaging regarding Star Citizen's development status. When players report persistent bugs, server issues, or gameplay problems, CIG and community moderators frequently emphasize the game's "alpha" status as justification for these issues, suggesting the project is still in early development. However, when faced with questions about delayed delivery of promised features or criticism of continuous sales practices, the company often presents Star Citizen as a delivered, playable product that is simply receiving ongoing development. This contradiction has been particularly evident in legal contexts, where CIG has defended against refund requests by asserting that the base game has been "delivered" to backers, while simultaneously using the alpha designation to deflect criticism about long-standing technical issues and missing core gameplay features promised in the original crowdfunding campaign. The dual narrative has led to growing skepticism within the gaming community about the project's actual development status and CIG's transparency regarding project completion criteria.

==Development Communication Issues==
Squadron 42's "Answer the Call 2017" marketing campaign ended in failure when CIG did not deliver the promised single-player campaign, despite extensive marketing featuring a star-studded cast including Mark Hamill, Gary Oldman, and Gillian Anderson<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42</ref>. Following community backlash over the missed release, CIG announced plans for a new project roadmap in late 2017. However, this evolved into what became known as the "Roadmap to the Roadmap," with a release view being finally available in March of 2018. When finally delivered, the new roadmap consistently showed missed deadlines and delayed features. Rather than address these delays, CIG ultimately discontinued much of the roadmap's progress tracker in February 2022, dismissively labeling concerned backers as "roadmap watchers" <ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022</ref> and claiming that showing development progress "puts too much attention on features that had a high probability of shifting around" and was "a distraction both internally at CIG and within the community". This marked a significant departure from their previous promises of transparency and was met with substantial community backlash, particularly from backers who had used the roadmap to track progress on features they had purchased years earlier.

==Consumer Response==
[[File:-r-Starcitizen Corruption.png|thumb|CIG Employee Zac Preece asking in a private discord server for a post to be removed from the /r/starcitizen reddit. This post by the account of the reddit moderator Ian (MrRiceGuy) didn't violate the rules yet proceeded to remove said post anyway. ]]
The prolonged development timeline and sales practices have led to organized consumer response movements, notably the /r/starcitizen_refunds subreddit community with over 18,000 members.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/</ref>. This subreddit serves as a platform for dissatisfied backers seeking refunds, documenting development delays, and tracking changes to terms of service that affect consumer rights. Discussion of these issues on official channels is heavily restricted, with CIG's Spectrum forum rules explicitly prohibiting posts deemed to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD)<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities</ref> and the discussion of support tickets / moderation decisions.

While unofficial communities like the /r/starcitizen subreddit and Discord server exist, these spaces are heavily moderated to prevent discussion of negative sentiment due to strong ties between their moderators and Cloud Imperium Games employees.

As a result, /r/starcitizen_refunds has become the primary platform for maintaining records of unfulfilled promises and providing guidance for others seeking refunds.

==Ingame Moderation Inconsistencies==
[[File:Example of Exessive Griefing .png|thumb|An example of a user being banned for the term 'Excessive Griefing' and being directed to review the terms of service and rules of conduct for a term that doesn't exist. ]]
The moderation practices of Cloud Imperium have drawn criticism for inconsistent and opaque enforcement. Users can receiving bans for "excessive griefing" despite this term having no defined parameters in either the Terms of Service<ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos</ref> or Rules of Conduct<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct</ref> documentation. Users receive these bans without stated reasons, requiring them to file support tickets to learn of their alleged infractions. This lack of transparency and disconnect between written policies and enforcement has created significant uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable behavior.

Star Citizen's Persistent Universe or PU for short is an open sandbox that allows players to engage in PVP activities such as Piracy and Bounty Hunting yet activity participating in these activities could lead a player to being banned for 'excessively' engaging in this activity under the guise of it being 'harassment' to do so.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Star Citizen]]
[[Category:Cloud Imperium Games]]
[[Category:Crowdfunding]]
[[Category:Digital goods]]
[[Category:Consumer protection]]
[[Category:Software]]

Star Citizen

2025-02-17T00:01:03Z

Enforcer: Added ASA ruling.

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = Star Citizen
| Release Year = 2012-present
| Product Type = Digital Game Content
| In Production = Yes
| Developer = Cloud Imperium Games
| Official Website = https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
}}

Star Citizen, a crowdfunded space simulation game, has sold numerous digital products and features since 2012 that remain undelivered as of 2024. Key items include ships costing hundreds of dollars, a modding platform, and private server capabilities, pets, and much more, all of which continue to be marketed and sold despite no implementation timeline.

==Background==
Star Citizen began as a Kickstarter campaign in 2012 by Chris Roberts, creator of Wing Commander. The project promised a combination of space combat, trading, and exploration alongside a single-player campaign called Squadron 42. The campaign raised $2.1 million initially, with total crowdfunding exceeding $600 million by 2024 through continuous sales of digital ships and game packages.

==Undelivered Product Sales==
Cloud Imperium Games (CIG) has maintained a practice of selling digital products years before implementation under the guise of calling it a 'concept', with several items or 'pledges' remaining undelivered after a decade:

===Ships and Vehicles===
*Idris-M: Originally sold in 2012 for $1,000, military variant, undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Idris-P: Civilian variant sold since 2012 for $1,250, price increased to $1,500, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Banu Merchantman|Merchantman: First sold in 2013 for $250 (original concept sale), currently priced at $600.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman</ref>
*Orion: First sold in 2014 for $325 (original concept sale), industrial mining vessel remains undelivered, current price $575.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Orion</ref>
*Genesis Starliner: Sold in 2015 for $400 (original concept sale), passenger transport remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner</ref>
*Endeavor: Made available in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), limited availability since with price increases.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Endeavor</ref>
*Hull D: Sold since 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), price increased in subsequent sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D</ref>
*Hull E: Offered in 2015 for $550 (original concept sale), increased to $950 in later sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E</ref>
*Crucible: Sold in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), repair ship remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible</ref>
*Pioneer: Marketed in 2017 for $850 (original concept sale), base-building vessel remains in concept phase<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer</ref>
*Drake Kraken: First sold in 2018 for $1,400 (original concept sale), capital ship with privateer variant sold for $2,000, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken</ref>
*Railen: First sold in 2021 for $200 (original concept sale), remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Railen</ref>

Note: All listed vessels have been sold multiple times since their original concept sales, often at increased prices. Many remain in concept phase or early development despite years passing since initial sales.

==Consumer Protection Concerns==
The practice of selling digital products years before implementation has raised significant consumer protection concerns. Despite marketing these items as 'pledges' or 'concepts', CIG continues to charge real money for digital goods with no firm delivery timeline or guarantee of implementation. The company's terms of service have been modified multiple times since 2012, changing the conditions under which refunds are offered and altering customer rights regarding purchased content. Many backers who attempted to obtain refunds for undelivered products have reported difficulties, with CIG often citing their evolving terms of service as justification for denial. The lack of concrete development schedules for sold items, combined with regular price increases for unreleased content, has led to criticism from consumer advocacy groups and gaming industry observers. Additionally, the practice of artificial scarcity through "limited-time sales" of digital products that don't yet exist has been questioned as potentially misleading marketing.
[[File:ASA Response .png|thumb|A response letter from the Advertising Standards Authority affirming that Cloud Imperium Games likely had breached the Advertising Rules when failing to ]]
In 2021, following a consumer complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) by a member of the /r/starcitizen_refunds community<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/pfgchs/uk_advertising_standards_agency_rule_concept_ship/</ref>, Cloud Imperium Games was required to modify their concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined they violated Advertising Rules in the UK. The issue centered on emails promoting concept ships without clear disclosure that the advertised vessels did not yet exist in-game. In response, CIG added a standardized disclaimer to their marketing emails stating that concept ships are "being offered here as a limited vehicle concept pledge". The disclaimer also notes that purchasers receive a temporary "loaner vehicle" until their bought ship becomes available.

==Development Status Contradictions==
A notable point of controversy surrounds CIG's inconsistent messaging regarding Star Citizen's development status. When players report persistent bugs, server issues, or gameplay problems, CIG and community moderators frequently emphasize the game's "alpha" status as justification for these issues, suggesting the project is still in early development. However, when faced with questions about delayed delivery of promised features or criticism of continuous sales practices, the company often presents Star Citizen as a delivered, playable product that is simply receiving ongoing development. This contradiction has been particularly evident in legal contexts, where CIG has defended against refund requests by asserting that the base game has been "delivered" to backers, while simultaneously using the alpha designation to deflect criticism about long-standing technical issues and missing core gameplay features promised in the original crowdfunding campaign. The dual narrative has led to growing skepticism within the gaming community about the project's actual development status and CIG's transparency regarding project completion criteria.

==Development Communication Issues==
Squadron 42's "Answer the Call 2017" marketing campaign ended in failure when CIG did not deliver the promised single-player campaign, despite extensive marketing featuring a star-studded cast including Mark Hamill, Gary Oldman, and Gillian Anderson<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42</ref>. Following community backlash over the missed release, CIG announced plans for a new project roadmap in late 2017. However, this evolved into what became known as the "Roadmap to the Roadmap," with a release view being finally available in March of 2018. When finally delivered, the new roadmap consistently showed missed deadlines and delayed features. Rather than address these delays, CIG ultimately discontinued much of the roadmap's progress tracker in February 2022, dismissively labeling concerned backers as "roadmap watchers" <ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022</ref> and claiming that showing development progress "puts too much attention on features that had a high probability of shifting around" and was "a distraction both internally at CIG and within the community". This marked a significant departure from their previous promises of transparency and was met with substantial community backlash, particularly from backers who had used the roadmap to track progress on features they had purchased years earlier.

==Consumer Response==
[[File:-r-Starcitizen Corruption.png|thumb|CIG Employee Zac Preece asking in a private discord server for a post to be removed from the /r/starcitizen reddit. This post by the account of the reddit moderator Ian (MrRiceGuy) didn't violate the rules yet proceeded to remove said post anyway. ]]
The prolonged development timeline and sales practices have led to organized consumer response movements, notably the /r/starcitizen_refunds subreddit community with over 18,000 members.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/</ref>. This subreddit serves as a platform for dissatisfied backers seeking refunds, documenting development delays, and tracking changes to terms of service that affect consumer rights. Discussion of these issues on official channels is heavily restricted, with CIG's Spectrum forum rules explicitly prohibiting posts deemed to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD)<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities</ref> and the discussion of support tickets / moderation decisions.

While unofficial communities like the /r/starcitizen subreddit and Discord server exist, these spaces are heavily moderated to prevent discussion of negative sentiment due to strong ties between their moderators and Cloud Imperium Games employees.

As a result, /r/starcitizen_refunds has become the primary platform for maintaining records of unfulfilled promises and providing guidance for others seeking refunds.

==Ingame Moderation Inconsistencies==
[[File:Example of Exessive Griefing .png|thumb|An example of a user being banned for the term 'Excessive Griefing' and being directed to review the terms of service and rules of conduct for a term that doesn't exist. ]]
The moderation practices of Cloud Imperium have drawn criticism for inconsistent and opaque enforcement. Users can receiving bans for "excessive griefing" despite this term having no defined parameters in either the Terms of Service<ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos</ref> or Rules of Conduct<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct</ref> documentation. Users receive these bans without stated reasons, requiring them to file support tickets to learn of their alleged infractions. This lack of transparency and disconnect between written policies and enforcement has created significant uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable behavior.

Star Citizen's Persistent Universe or PU for short is an open sandbox that allows players to engage in PVP activities such as Piracy and Bounty Hunting yet activity participating in these activities could lead a player to being banned for 'excessively' engaging in this activity under the guise of it being 'harassment' to do so.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Star Citizen]]
[[Category:Cloud Imperium Games]]
[[Category:Crowdfunding]]
[[Category:Digital goods]]
[[Category:Consumer protection]]
[[Category:Software]]

File:ASA Response.png

2025-02-16T23:47:52Z

Enforcer:

A letter from the Advertising Standards Authority (UK) affirming Cloud Imperium likely breached the Advertising Rules

Star Citizen

2025-02-16T20:05:12Z

Enforcer: Included a screenshot regarding the /r/starcitizen subreddit colluding with the cloud imperium games employees.

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = Star Citizen
| Release Year = 2012-present
| Product Type = Digital Game Content
| In Production = Yes
| Developer = Cloud Imperium Games
| Official Website = https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
}}

Star Citizen, a crowdfunded space simulation game, has sold numerous digital products and features since 2012 that remain undelivered as of 2024. Key items include ships costing hundreds of dollars, a modding platform, and private server capabilities, pets, and much more, all of which continue to be marketed and sold despite no implementation timeline.

==Background==
Star Citizen began as a Kickstarter campaign in 2012 by Chris Roberts, creator of Wing Commander. The project promised a combination of space combat, trading, and exploration alongside a single-player campaign called Squadron 42. The campaign raised $2.1 million initially, with total crowdfunding exceeding $600 million by 2024 through continuous sales of digital ships and game packages.

==Undelivered Product Sales==
Cloud Imperium Games (CIG) has maintained a practice of selling digital products years before implementation under the guise of calling it a 'concept', with several items or 'pledges' remaining undelivered after a decade:

===Ships and Vehicles===
*Idris-M: Originally sold in 2012 for $1,000, military variant, undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Idris-P: Civilian variant sold since 2012 for $1,250, price increased to $1,500, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Banu Merchantman|Merchantman: First sold in 2013 for $250 (original concept sale), currently priced at $600.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman</ref>
*Orion: First sold in 2014 for $325 (original concept sale), industrial mining vessel remains undelivered, current price $575.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Orion</ref>
*Genesis Starliner: Sold in 2015 for $400 (original concept sale), passenger transport remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner</ref>
*Endeavor: Made available in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), limited availability since with price increases.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Endeavor</ref>
*Hull D: Sold since 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), price increased in subsequent sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D</ref>
*Hull E: Offered in 2015 for $550 (original concept sale), increased to $950 in later sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E</ref>
*Crucible: Sold in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), repair ship remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible</ref>
*Pioneer: Marketed in 2017 for $850 (original concept sale), base-building vessel remains in concept phase<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer</ref>
*Drake Kraken: First sold in 2018 for $1,400 (original concept sale), capital ship with privateer variant sold for $2,000, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken</ref>

Note: All listed vessels have been sold multiple times since their original concept sales, often at increased prices. Many remain in concept phase or early development despite years passing since initial sales.

==Consumer Protection Concerns==
The practice of selling digital products years before implementation has raised significant consumer protection concerns. Despite marketing these items as 'pledges' or 'concepts', CIG continues to charge real money for digital goods with no firm delivery timeline or guarantee of implementation. The company's terms of service have been modified multiple times since 2012, changing the conditions under which refunds are offered and altering customer rights regarding purchased content. Many backers who attempted to obtain refunds for undelivered products have reported difficulties, with CIG often citing their evolving terms of service as justification for denial. The lack of concrete development schedules for sold items, combined with regular price increases for unreleased content, has led to criticism from consumer advocacy groups and gaming industry observers. Additionally, the practice of artificial scarcity through "limited-time sales" of digital products that don't yet exist has been questioned as potentially misleading marketing.

==Development Status Contradictions==
A notable point of controversy surrounds CIG's inconsistent messaging regarding Star Citizen's development status. When players report persistent bugs, server issues, or gameplay problems, CIG and community moderators frequently emphasize the game's "alpha" status as justification for these issues, suggesting the project is still in early development. However, when faced with questions about delayed delivery of promised features or criticism of continuous sales practices, the company often presents Star Citizen as a delivered, playable product that is simply receiving ongoing development. This contradiction has been particularly evident in legal contexts, where CIG has defended against refund requests by asserting that the base game has been "delivered" to backers, while simultaneously using the alpha designation to deflect criticism about long-standing technical issues and missing core gameplay features promised in the original crowdfunding campaign. The dual narrative has led to growing skepticism within the gaming community about the project's actual development status and CIG's transparency regarding project completion criteria.

==Development Communication Issues==
Squadron 42's "Answer the Call 2017" marketing campaign ended in failure when CIG did not deliver the promised single-player campaign, despite extensive marketing featuring a star-studded cast including Mark Hamill, Gary Oldman, and Gillian Anderson<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42</ref>. Following community backlash over the missed release, CIG announced plans for a new project roadmap in late 2017. However, this evolved into what became known as the "Roadmap to the Roadmap," with a release view being finally available in March of 2018. When finally delivered, the new roadmap consistently showed missed deadlines and delayed features. Rather than address these delays, CIG ultimately discontinued much of the roadmap's progress tracker in February 2022, dismissively labeling concerned backers as "roadmap watchers" <ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022</ref> and claiming that showing development progress "puts too much attention on features that had a high probability of shifting around" and was "a distraction both internally at CIG and within the community". This marked a significant departure from their previous promises of transparency and was met with substantial community backlash, particularly from backers who had used the roadmap to track progress on features they had purchased years earlier.

==Consumer Response==
[[File:-r-Starcitizen Corruption.png|thumb|CIG Employee Zac Preece asking in a private discord server for a post to be removed from the /r/starcitizen reddit. This post by the account of the reddit moderator Ian (MrRiceGuy) didn't violate the rules yet proceeded to remove said post anyway. ]]
The prolonged development timeline and sales practices have led to organized consumer response movements, notably the /r/starcitizen_refunds subreddit community with over 18,000 members.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/</ref>. This subreddit serves as a platform for dissatisfied backers seeking refunds, documenting development delays, and tracking changes to terms of service that affect consumer rights. Discussion of these issues on official channels is heavily restricted, with CIG's Spectrum forum rules explicitly prohibiting posts deemed to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD)<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities</ref> and the discussion of support tickets / moderation decisions.

While unofficial communities like the /r/starcitizen subreddit and Discord server exist, these spaces are heavily moderated to prevent discussion of negative sentiment due to strong ties between their moderators and Cloud Imperium Games employees.

As a result, /r/starcitizen_refunds has become the primary platform for maintaining records of unfulfilled promises and providing guidance for others seeking refunds.

==Ingame Moderation Inconsistencies==
[[File:Example of Exessive Griefing .png|thumb|An example of a user being banned for the term 'Excessive Griefing' and being directed to review the terms of service and rules of conduct for a term that doesn't exist. ]]
The moderation practices of Cloud Imperium have drawn criticism for inconsistent and opaque enforcement. Users can receiving bans for "excessive griefing" despite this term having no defined parameters in either the Terms of Service<ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos</ref> or Rules of Conduct<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct</ref> documentation. Users receive these bans without stated reasons, requiring them to file support tickets to learn of their alleged infractions. This lack of transparency and disconnect between written policies and enforcement has created significant uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable behavior.

Star Citizen's Persistent Universe or PU for short is an open sandbox that allows players to engage in PVP activities such as Piracy and Bounty Hunting yet activity participating in these activities could lead a player to being banned for 'excessively' engaging in this activity under the guise of it being 'harassment' to do so.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Star Citizen]]
[[Category:Cloud Imperium Games]]
[[Category:Crowdfunding]]
[[Category:Digital goods]]
[[Category:Consumer protection]]
[[Category:Software]]

File:-r-Starcitizen Corruption.png

2025-02-16T19:59:13Z

Enforcer:

A conversation with a Reddit Moderator and a CIG staff member asking for a post that is critical of Cloud Imperium to be removed. The reddit staff member Ian (MrRiceGuy) makes it clear the post didn't violate any rules yet proceeds to delete the post anyway.

Star Citizen

2025-02-16T19:37:11Z

Enforcer: Added a new line

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = Star Citizen
| Release Year = 2012-present
| Product Type = Digital Game Content
| In Production = Yes
| Developer = Cloud Imperium Games
| Official Website = https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
}}

Star Citizen, a crowdfunded space simulation game, has sold numerous digital products and features since 2012 that remain undelivered as of 2024. Key items include ships costing hundreds of dollars, a modding platform, and private server capabilities, pets, and much more, all of which continue to be marketed and sold despite no implementation timeline.

==Background==
Star Citizen began as a Kickstarter campaign in 2012 by Chris Roberts, creator of Wing Commander. The project promised a combination of space combat, trading, and exploration alongside a single-player campaign called Squadron 42. The campaign raised $2.1 million initially, with total crowdfunding exceeding $600 million by 2024 through continuous sales of digital ships and game packages.

==Undelivered Product Sales==
Cloud Imperium Games (CIG) has maintained a practice of selling digital products years before implementation under the guise of calling it a 'concept', with several items or 'pledges' remaining undelivered after a decade:

===Ships and Vehicles===
*Idris-M: Originally sold in 2012 for $1,000, military variant, undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Idris-P: Civilian variant sold since 2012 for $1,250, price increased to $1,500, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Banu Merchantman|Merchantman: First sold in 2013 for $250 (original concept sale), currently priced at $600.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman</ref>
*Orion: First sold in 2014 for $325 (original concept sale), industrial mining vessel remains undelivered, current price $575.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Orion</ref>
*Genesis Starliner: Sold in 2015 for $400 (original concept sale), passenger transport remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner</ref>
*Endeavor: Made available in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), limited availability since with price increases.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Endeavor</ref>
*Hull D: Sold since 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), price increased in subsequent sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D</ref>
*Hull E: Offered in 2015 for $550 (original concept sale), increased to $950 in later sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E</ref>
*Crucible: Sold in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), repair ship remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible</ref>
*Pioneer: Marketed in 2017 for $850 (original concept sale), base-building vessel remains in concept phase<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer</ref>
*Drake Kraken: First sold in 2018 for $1,400 (original concept sale), capital ship with privateer variant sold for $2,000, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken</ref>

Note: All listed vessels have been sold multiple times since their original concept sales, often at increased prices. Many remain in concept phase or early development despite years passing since initial sales.

==Consumer Protection Concerns==
The practice of selling digital products years before implementation has raised significant consumer protection concerns. Despite marketing these items as 'pledges' or 'concepts', CIG continues to charge real money for digital goods with no firm delivery timeline or guarantee of implementation. The company's terms of service have been modified multiple times since 2012, changing the conditions under which refunds are offered and altering customer rights regarding purchased content. Many backers who attempted to obtain refunds for undelivered products have reported difficulties, with CIG often citing their evolving terms of service as justification for denial. The lack of concrete development schedules for sold items, combined with regular price increases for unreleased content, has led to criticism from consumer advocacy groups and gaming industry observers. Additionally, the practice of artificial scarcity through "limited-time sales" of digital products that don't yet exist has been questioned as potentially misleading marketing.

==Development Status Contradictions==
A notable point of controversy surrounds CIG's inconsistent messaging regarding Star Citizen's development status. When players report persistent bugs, server issues, or gameplay problems, CIG and community moderators frequently emphasize the game's "alpha" status as justification for these issues, suggesting the project is still in early development. However, when faced with questions about delayed delivery of promised features or criticism of continuous sales practices, the company often presents Star Citizen as a delivered, playable product that is simply receiving ongoing development. This contradiction has been particularly evident in legal contexts, where CIG has defended against refund requests by asserting that the base game has been "delivered" to backers, while simultaneously using the alpha designation to deflect criticism about long-standing technical issues and missing core gameplay features promised in the original crowdfunding campaign. The dual narrative has led to growing skepticism within the gaming community about the project's actual development status and CIG's transparency regarding project completion criteria.

==Development Communication Issues==
Squadron 42's "Answer the Call 2017" marketing campaign ended in failure when CIG did not deliver the promised single-player campaign, despite extensive marketing featuring a star-studded cast including Mark Hamill, Gary Oldman, and Gillian Anderson<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42</ref>. Following community backlash over the missed release, CIG announced plans for a new project roadmap in late 2017. However, this evolved into what became known as the "Roadmap to the Roadmap," with a release view being finally available in March of 2018. When finally delivered, the new roadmap consistently showed missed deadlines and delayed features. Rather than address these delays, CIG ultimately discontinued much of the roadmap's progress tracker in February 2022, dismissively labeling concerned backers as "roadmap watchers" <ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022</ref> and claiming that showing development progress "puts too much attention on features that had a high probability of shifting around" and was "a distraction both internally at CIG and within the community". This marked a significant departure from their previous promises of transparency and was met with substantial community backlash, particularly from backers who had used the roadmap to track progress on features they had purchased years earlier.

==Consumer Response==
The prolonged development timeline and sales practices have led to organized consumer response movements, notably the /r/starcitizen_refunds subreddit community with over 18,000 members.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/</ref>. This subreddit serves as a platform for dissatisfied backers seeking refunds, documenting development delays, and tracking changes to terms of service that affect consumer rights. Discussion of these issues on official channels is heavily restricted, with CIG's Spectrum forum rules explicitly prohibiting posts deemed to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD)<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities</ref> and the discussion of support tickets / moderation decisions.

While unofficial communities like the /r/starcitizen subreddit and Discord server exist, these spaces are heavily moderated to prevent discussion of negative sentiment due to strong ties between their moderators and Cloud Imperium Games employees. As a result, /r/starcitizen_refunds has become the primary platform for maintaining records of unfulfilled promises and providing guidance for others seeking refunds.

==Ingame Moderation Inconsistencies==
[[File:Example of Exessive Griefing .png|thumb]]
The moderation practices of Cloud Imperium have drawn criticism for inconsistent and opaque enforcement. Users can receiving bans for "excessive griefing" despite this term having no defined parameters in either the Terms of Service<ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos</ref> or Rules of Conduct<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct</ref> documentation. Users receive these bans without stated reasons, requiring them to file support tickets to learn of their alleged infractions. This lack of transparency and disconnect between written policies and enforcement has created significant uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable behavior.

Star Citizen's Persistent Universe or PU for short is an open sandbox that allows players to engage in PVP activities such as Piracy and Bounty Hunting yet activity participating in these activities could lead a player to being banned for 'excessively' engaging in this activity under the guise of it being 'harassment' to do so.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Star Citizen]]
[[Category:Cloud Imperium Games]]
[[Category:Crowdfunding]]
[[Category:Digital goods]]
[[Category:Consumer protection]]
[[Category:Software]]

Star Citizen

2025-02-16T19:36:33Z

Enforcer: Included paragraph about Ingame Moderation Inconsistencies

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = Star Citizen
| Release Year = 2012-present
| Product Type = Digital Game Content
| In Production = Yes
| Developer = Cloud Imperium Games
| Official Website = https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
}}

Star Citizen, a crowdfunded space simulation game, has sold numerous digital products and features since 2012 that remain undelivered as of 2024. Key items include ships costing hundreds of dollars, a modding platform, and private server capabilities, pets, and much more, all of which continue to be marketed and sold despite no implementation timeline.

==Background==
Star Citizen began as a Kickstarter campaign in 2012 by Chris Roberts, creator of Wing Commander. The project promised a combination of space combat, trading, and exploration alongside a single-player campaign called Squadron 42. The campaign raised $2.1 million initially, with total crowdfunding exceeding $600 million by 2024 through continuous sales of digital ships and game packages.

==Undelivered Product Sales==
Cloud Imperium Games (CIG) has maintained a practice of selling digital products years before implementation under the guise of calling it a 'concept', with several items or 'pledges' remaining undelivered after a decade:

===Ships and Vehicles===
*Idris-M: Originally sold in 2012 for $1,000, military variant, undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Idris-P: Civilian variant sold since 2012 for $1,250, price increased to $1,500, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris</ref>
*Banu Merchantman|Merchantman: First sold in 2013 for $250 (original concept sale), currently priced at $600.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman</ref>
*Orion: First sold in 2014 for $325 (original concept sale), industrial mining vessel remains undelivered, current price $575.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Orion</ref>
*Genesis Starliner: Sold in 2015 for $400 (original concept sale), passenger transport remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner</ref>
*Endeavor: Made available in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), limited availability since with price increases.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Endeavor</ref>
*Hull D: Sold since 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), price increased in subsequent sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D</ref>
*Hull E: Offered in 2015 for $550 (original concept sale), increased to $950 in later sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E</ref>
*Crucible: Sold in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), repair ship remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible</ref>
*Pioneer: Marketed in 2017 for $850 (original concept sale), base-building vessel remains in concept phase<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer</ref>
*Drake Kraken: First sold in 2018 for $1,400 (original concept sale), capital ship with privateer variant sold for $2,000, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken</ref>

Note: All listed vessels have been sold multiple times since their original concept sales, often at increased prices. Many remain in concept phase or early development despite years passing since initial sales.

==Consumer Protection Concerns==
The practice of selling digital products years before implementation has raised significant consumer protection concerns. Despite marketing these items as 'pledges' or 'concepts', CIG continues to charge real money for digital goods with no firm delivery timeline or guarantee of implementation. The company's terms of service have been modified multiple times since 2012, changing the conditions under which refunds are offered and altering customer rights regarding purchased content. Many backers who attempted to obtain refunds for undelivered products have reported difficulties, with CIG often citing their evolving terms of service as justification for denial. The lack of concrete development schedules for sold items, combined with regular price increases for unreleased content, has led to criticism from consumer advocacy groups and gaming industry observers. Additionally, the practice of artificial scarcity through "limited-time sales" of digital products that don't yet exist has been questioned as potentially misleading marketing.

==Development Status Contradictions==
A notable point of controversy surrounds CIG's inconsistent messaging regarding Star Citizen's development status. When players report persistent bugs, server issues, or gameplay problems, CIG and community moderators frequently emphasize the game's "alpha" status as justification for these issues, suggesting the project is still in early development. However, when faced with questions about delayed delivery of promised features or criticism of continuous sales practices, the company often presents Star Citizen as a delivered, playable product that is simply receiving ongoing development. This contradiction has been particularly evident in legal contexts, where CIG has defended against refund requests by asserting that the base game has been "delivered" to backers, while simultaneously using the alpha designation to deflect criticism about long-standing technical issues and missing core gameplay features promised in the original crowdfunding campaign. The dual narrative has led to growing skepticism within the gaming community about the project's actual development status and CIG's transparency regarding project completion criteria.

==Development Communication Issues==
Squadron 42's "Answer the Call 2017" marketing campaign ended in failure when CIG did not deliver the promised single-player campaign, despite extensive marketing featuring a star-studded cast including Mark Hamill, Gary Oldman, and Gillian Anderson<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42</ref>. Following community backlash over the missed release, CIG announced plans for a new project roadmap in late 2017. However, this evolved into what became known as the "Roadmap to the Roadmap," with a release view being finally available in March of 2018. When finally delivered, the new roadmap consistently showed missed deadlines and delayed features. Rather than address these delays, CIG ultimately discontinued much of the roadmap's progress tracker in February 2022, dismissively labeling concerned backers as "roadmap watchers" <ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022</ref> and claiming that showing development progress "puts too much attention on features that had a high probability of shifting around" and was "a distraction both internally at CIG and within the community". This marked a significant departure from their previous promises of transparency and was met with substantial community backlash, particularly from backers who had used the roadmap to track progress on features they had purchased years earlier.

==Consumer Response==
The prolonged development timeline and sales practices have led to organized consumer response movements, notably the /r/starcitizen_refunds subreddit community with over 18,000 members.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/</ref>. This subreddit serves as a platform for dissatisfied backers seeking refunds, documenting development delays, and tracking changes to terms of service that affect consumer rights. Discussion of these issues on official channels is heavily restricted, with CIG's Spectrum forum rules explicitly prohibiting posts deemed to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD)<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities</ref> and the discussion of support tickets / moderation decisions.

While unofficial communities like the /r/starcitizen subreddit and Discord server exist, these spaces are heavily moderated to prevent discussion of negative sentiment due to strong ties between their moderators and Cloud Imperium Games employees. As a result, /r/starcitizen_refunds has become the primary platform for maintaining records of unfulfilled promises and providing guidance for others seeking refunds.

==Ingame Moderation Inconsistencies==
[[File:Example of Exessive Griefing .png|thumb]]
The moderation practices of Cloud Imperium have drawn criticism for inconsistent and opaque enforcement. Users can receiving bans for "excessive griefing" despite this term having no defined parameters in either the Terms of Service<ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos</ref> or Rules of Conduct<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct</ref> documentation. Users receive these bans without stated reasons, requiring them to file support tickets to learn of their alleged infractions. This lack of transparency and disconnect between written policies and enforcement has created significant uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable behavior.
Star Citizen's Persistent Universe or PU for short is an open sandbox that allows players to engage in PVP activities such as Piracy and Bounty Hunting yet activity participating in these activities could lead a player to being banned for 'excessively' engaging in this activity under the guise of it being 'harassment' to do so.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Star Citizen]]
[[Category:Cloud Imperium Games]]
[[Category:Crowdfunding]]
[[Category:Digital goods]]
[[Category:Consumer protection]]
[[Category:Software]]

File:Star Citizen excessive griefing example.png

2025-02-16T19:26:16Z

Enforcer:

An example of the term Excessive Griefing being used and sighting the terms of service and rules of conduct despite no such term existing.

Star Citizen

2025-02-16T06:57:23Z

Enforcer: /* Development Communication Issues */ - Typo'd the wrong timeline for the roadmap delivery.

Star Citizen

2025-02-16T06:42:12Z

Enforcer: Added Star Citizen to software

Star Citizen

2025-02-16T06:37:12Z

Enforcer: Added Star Citizen

Riot Vanguard

2025-02-15T22:37:11Z

Enforcer: /* Official Statements */

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = {{PAGENAME}}
| Release Year = 2020
| Product Type = Anti-cheat Software
| In Production = Yes
| Logo = Riot_Vanguard_Logo.png
}}

[[wikipedia:Riot_Vanguard|Riot Vanguard]] is an anti-cheat system developed by Riot Games, initially released for VALORANT in 2020 and later expanded to League of Legends in April of 2024.

==Consumer impact summary==
Overview of concerns that arise from the conduct towards users of the product:
*Privacy: Vanguard is a kernel-level (ring 0) anti-cheat. It has access to everything on your computer. Riot Games is owned by Tencent which has strong ties with the Chinese government.
*Control: Users must have Vanguard running from computer startup to play any Riot games, even when not playing.
*Access: As a kernel-level anti-cheat, Vanguard has the highest level of access to your computer.

==Incidents==
===League of Legends Implementation (April 2024)===
In April 2024, Riot Games announced that Vanguard would become mandatory for all League of Legends players. <ref>https://support-leagueoflegends.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/24169857932435-Riot-Vanguard-FAQ-League-of-Legends</ref> This decision was particularly controversial for several reasons:

*The requirement affected a 14-year-old game that had previously operated without kernel-level anti-cheat.
*Players were required to install Vanguard to continue accessing their accounts and purchased content.
*No opt-out option was provided for players who did not wish to install kernel-level software.
*The implementation affected all regions globally, including areas with strict privacy regulations.
*Players using Linux through Wine/Proton would no longer be able to play the game.

==Concerns==
===Tencent Ownership and Chinese Government Ties===
A major concern surrounding Vanguard stems from Riot Games' ownership by Tencent Holdings, a Chinese technology conglomerate. This ownership, combined with Vanguard's kernel-level access, raises significant security and privacy implications due to Chinese legal requirements, particularly the [[wikipedia:National_Intelligence_Law_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China|National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic of China]] (2017).
The law mandates cooperation with national intelligence efforts from all organizations and citizens. Relevant articles include:<blockquote>Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of.

Article 10: As necessary for their work, national intelligence work institutions are to use the necessary means, tactics, and channels to carry out intelligence efforts, domestically and abroad.

Article 18: As required for work, and in accordance with relevant national provisions, national intelligence work institutions may ask organs such as for customs and entry-exit border inspection to provide facilitation such as exemptions from inspection.</blockquote>These legal requirements raise several concerns:
*Tencent, as a Chinese company, could be legally compelled to provide data or access through Vanguard.
*The kernel-level access could potentially be leveraged for surveillance or data collection beyond anti-cheat purposes.
*An hacker attack to Vanguard could have catastrophic consequences
*Users have no way to verify if or when such access might be utilized.
*The combination of mandatory installation, kernel-level access, and Chinese ownership creates potential security risks for:
**Government employees.
**Corporate users with sensitive data.
**Military personnel.
**Users with access to critical infrastructure.

===Technical Implications===
The kernel-level access combined with potential government compulsion is particularly concerning because:
*Ring 0 access provides complete system control.
*Users cannot monitor or restrict Vanguard's activities at this level.
*The always-on requirement means the system is potentially vulnerable even when not gaming.
*The software could theoretically be used as a backdoor if compelled by authorities.

==Company Response==
===Official Statements===
Riot Games has responded to various concerns about Vanguard through multiple official channels:

{Sources to be added}

*Following the League of Legends implementation announcement, Riot published a detailed FAQ addressing community concerns. They maintained that Vanguard's kernel driver is focused solely on game integrity and doesn't process any personal information.<ref>https://support-leagueoflegends.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/24169857932435-Riot-Vanguard-FAQ-League-of-Legends</ref>
*Riot Security Team published a technical blog post explaining that Vanguard's kernel-level implementation is necessary to detect and prevent sophisticated cheating methods that operate at the same level.<ref>https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/a-message-about-vanguard-from-our-security-privacy-teams</ref>

{{quote|We understand the decision to run the driver component in kernel-mode can raise concerns, and that some of you want to know more about the tech behind Vanguard. We can't get too deep into the technical specifics without potentially compromising Vanguard... plus we can assure you that it has been reviewed by both internal and external security experts.|[[Riot Games]]<ref>[https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/a-message-about-vanguard-from-our-security-privacy-teams "A Message About Vanguard from our Security & Privacy Teams"] ''Riot Games''. Retrieved 2024-02-16</ref>}}

Riot Games has expressed that kernel level anti cheat is becoming an industry standard however no other anti cheat software is as invasive as Vanguard. Riot claims that to defeat cheaters operating at the kernel level, it is necessary to also be operating at the same level. This is untrue. They claim the only way to stop account botting, ranked boosting and to ban cheaters permanently via using hardware identifiers is to compromise your privacy despite the fact that other company's within the gaming industry whom are capable of banning bots and cheaters including hardware banning customers can do so without the need of kernel-level anti cheat detection that runs even when you are not playing their games.

Riot Vanguard is the only anticheat that requires it to be running at all times.

===Privacy and Security Assurances===
Riot Games has provided several assurances regarding Vanguard's security:
*The company stated that Vanguard's code has undergone multiple third-party security audits from independent cybersecurity firms.
*Riot maintains that the kernel driver cannot be remotely activated or modified without triggering operating system security protocols.
*The company emphasizes that all data collection is limited to game integrity verification, with strict internal controls preventing mission creep.

====Community Response====
The announcement led to significant backlash from the League of Legends community:
*Multiple Reddit threads reached the front page of r/leagueoflegends expressing concerns.
*Linux users can no longer play League of Legends. r/LeagueofLinux
*Players raised issues about the necessity of kernel-level anti-cheat for a MOBA game.
*Privacy advocates questioned the expansion of kernel-level software to a larger player base.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Anti-cheat software]]
[[Category:Privacy controversies]]
[[Category:Software]]
[[Category:Riot Games]]
[[Category:Articles requiring expansion]]

Riot Vanguard

2025-02-15T22:22:26Z

Enforcer: Added quote from Riot Games about Vanguard in being unable to go into the specifics about what Vanguard is doing in the background.

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = {{PAGENAME}}
| Release Year = 2020
| Product Type = Anti-cheat Software
| In Production = Yes
| Logo = Riot_Vanguard_Logo.png
}}

[[wikipedia:Riot_Vanguard|Riot Vanguard]] is an anti-cheat system developed by Riot Games, initially released for VALORANT in 2020 and later expanded to League of Legends in April of 2024.

==Consumer impact summary==
Overview of concerns that arise from the conduct towards users of the product:
*Privacy: Vanguard is a kernel-level (ring 0) anti-cheat. It has access to everything on your computer. Riot Games is owned by Tencent which has strong ties with the Chinese government.
*Control: Users must have Vanguard running from computer startup to play any Riot games, even when not playing.
*Access: As a kernel-level anti-cheat, Vanguard has the highest level of access to your computer.

==Incidents==
===League of Legends Implementation (April 2024)===
In April 2024, Riot Games announced that Vanguard would become mandatory for all League of Legends players. <ref>https://support-leagueoflegends.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/24169857932435-Riot-Vanguard-FAQ-League-of-Legends</ref> This decision was particularly controversial for several reasons:

*The requirement affected a 14-year-old game that had previously operated without kernel-level anti-cheat.
*Players were required to install Vanguard to continue accessing their accounts and purchased content.
*No opt-out option was provided for players who did not wish to install kernel-level software.
*The implementation affected all regions globally, including areas with strict privacy regulations.
*Players using Linux through Wine/Proton would no longer be able to play the game.

==Concerns==
===Tencent Ownership and Chinese Government Ties===
A major concern surrounding Vanguard stems from Riot Games' ownership by Tencent Holdings, a Chinese technology conglomerate. This ownership, combined with Vanguard's kernel-level access, raises significant security and privacy implications due to Chinese legal requirements, particularly the [[wikipedia:National_Intelligence_Law_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China|National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic of China]] (2017).
The law mandates cooperation with national intelligence efforts from all organizations and citizens. Relevant articles include:<blockquote>Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of.

Article 10: As necessary for their work, national intelligence work institutions are to use the necessary means, tactics, and channels to carry out intelligence efforts, domestically and abroad.

Article 18: As required for work, and in accordance with relevant national provisions, national intelligence work institutions may ask organs such as for customs and entry-exit border inspection to provide facilitation such as exemptions from inspection.</blockquote>These legal requirements raise several concerns:
*Tencent, as a Chinese company, could be legally compelled to provide data or access through Vanguard.
*The kernel-level access could potentially be leveraged for surveillance or data collection beyond anti-cheat purposes.
*An hacker attack to Vanguard could have catastrophic consequences
*Users have no way to verify if or when such access might be utilized.
*The combination of mandatory installation, kernel-level access, and Chinese ownership creates potential security risks for:
**Government employees.
**Corporate users with sensitive data.
**Military personnel.
**Users with access to critical infrastructure.

===Technical Implications===
The kernel-level access combined with potential government compulsion is particularly concerning because:
*Ring 0 access provides complete system control.
*Users cannot monitor or restrict Vanguard's activities at this level.
*The always-on requirement means the system is potentially vulnerable even when not gaming.
*The software could theoretically be used as a backdoor if compelled by authorities.

==Company Response==
===Official Statements===
Riot Games has responded to various concerns about Vanguard through multiple official channels:

{Sources to be added}

*Following the League of Legends implementation announcement, Riot published a detailed FAQ addressing community concerns. They maintained that Vanguard's kernel driver is focused solely on game integrity and doesn't process any personal information.<ref>https://support-leagueoflegends.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/24169857932435-Riot-Vanguard-FAQ-League-of-Legends</ref>
*Riot Security Team published a technical blog post explaining that Vanguard's kernel-level implementation is necessary to detect and prevent sophisticated cheating methods that operate at the same level.<ref>https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/a-message-about-vanguard-from-our-security-privacy-teams</ref>

{{quote|We understand the decision to run the driver component in kernel-mode can raise concerns, and that some of you want to know more about the tech behind Vanguard. We can't get too deep into the technical specifics without potentially compromising Vanguard... plus we can assure you that it has been reviewed by both internal and external security experts.|[[Riot Games]]<ref>[https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/a-message-about-vanguard-from-our-security-privacy-teams "A Message About Vanguard from our Security & Privacy Teams"] ''Riot Games''. Retrieved 2024-02-16</ref>}}

Riot Games has expressed that kernel level anticheat is becoming an industry standard, that to be able to defeat cheaters operating at the kernel level is to also be operating at the same level and that this is the only way to stop account botting, ranked boosting and to ban cheaters permanently via using hardware identifiers.

===Privacy and Security Assurances===
Riot Games has provided several assurances regarding Vanguard's security:
*The company stated that Vanguard's code has undergone multiple third-party security audits from independent cybersecurity firms.
*Riot maintains that the kernel driver cannot be remotely activated or modified without triggering operating system security protocols.
*The company emphasizes that all data collection is limited to game integrity verification, with strict internal controls preventing mission creep.

====Community Response====
The announcement led to significant backlash from the League of Legends community:
*Multiple Reddit threads reached the front page of r/leagueoflegends expressing concerns.
*Linux users can no longer play League of Legends. r/LeagueofLinux
*Players raised issues about the necessity of kernel-level anti-cheat for a MOBA game.
*Privacy advocates questioned the expansion of kernel-level software to a larger player base.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Anti-cheat software]]
[[Category:Privacy controversies]]
[[Category:Software]]
[[Category:Riot Games]]
[[Category:Articles requiring expansion]]

Riot Vanguard

2025-02-15T18:00:32Z

Enforcer: Added Logo for Riot Vanguard

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = {{PAGENAME}}
| Release Year = 2020
| Product Type = Anti-cheat Software
| In Production = Yes
| Logo = Riot_Vanguard_Logo.png
}}

[[wikipedia:Riot_Vanguard|Riot Vanguard]] is an anti-cheat system developed by Riot Games, initially released for VALORANT in 2020 and later expanded to League of Legends in April of 2024.

==Consumer impact summary==
Overview of concerns that arise from the conduct towards users of the product:
*Privacy: Vanguard is a kernel-level (ring 0) anti-cheat. It has access to everything on your computer. Riot Games is owned by Tencent which has strong ties with the Chinese government.
*Control: Users must have Vanguard running from computer startup to play any Riot games, even when not playing.
*Access: As a kernel-level anti-cheat, Vanguard has the highest level of access to your computer.

==Incidents==
===League of Legends Implementation (April 2024)===
In April 2024, Riot Games announced that Vanguard would become mandatory for all League of Legends players. <ref>https://support-leagueoflegends.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/24169857932435-Riot-Vanguard-FAQ-League-of-Legends</ref> This decision was particularly controversial for several reasons:

*The requirement affected a 14-year-old game that had previously operated without kernel-level anti-cheat.
*Players were required to install Vanguard to continue accessing their accounts and purchased content.
*No opt-out option was provided for players who did not wish to install kernel-level software.
*The implementation affected all regions globally, including areas with strict privacy regulations.
*Players using Linux through Wine/Proton would no longer be able to play the game.

==Concerns==
===Tencent Ownership and Chinese Government Ties===
A major concern surrounding Vanguard stems from Riot Games' ownership by Tencent Holdings, a Chinese technology conglomerate. This ownership, combined with Vanguard's kernel-level access, raises significant security and privacy implications due to Chinese legal requirements, particularly the National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic of China (2017).
The law mandates cooperation with national intelligence efforts from all organizations and citizens. Relevant articles include:

"Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of.
Article 10: As necessary for their work, national intelligence work institutions are to use the necessary means, tactics, and channels to carry out intelligence efforts, domestically and abroad.
Article 18: As required for work, and in accordance with relevant national provisions, national intelligence work institutions may ask organs such as for customs and entry-exit border inspection to provide facilitation such as exemptions from inspection."

These legal requirements raise several concerns:
*Tencent, as a Chinese company, could be legally compelled to provide data or access through Vanguard.
*The kernel-level access could potentially be leveraged for surveillance or data collection beyond anti-cheat purposes.
*Users have no way to verify if or when such access might be utilized.
*The combination of mandatory installation, kernel-level access, and Chinese ownership creates potential security risks for:
**Government employees.
**Corporate users with sensitive data.
**Military personnel.
**Users with access to critical infrastructure.

===Technical Implications===
The kernel-level access combined with potential government compulsion is particularly concerning because:
*Ring 0 access provides complete system control.
*Users cannot monitor or restrict Vanguard's activities at this level.
*The always-on requirement means the system is potentially vulnerable even when not gaming.
*The software could theoretically be used as a backdoor if compelled by authorities.

==Company Response==
===Official Statements===
Riot Games has responded to various concerns about Vanguard through multiple official channels:

{Sources to be added}

*Following the League of Legends implementation announcement, Riot published a detailed FAQ addressing community concerns. They maintained that Vanguard's kernel driver is focused solely on game integrity and doesn't process any personal information.
*Riot's Security Team published a technical blog post explaining that Vanguard's kernel-level implementation is necessary to detect and prevent sophisticated cheating methods that operate at the same level.

Riot Games has expressed that kernel level anticheat is becoming an industry standard, that to be able to defeat cheaters operating at the kernel level is to also be operating at the same level and that this is the only way to stop account botting, ranked boosting and to ban cheaters permanently via using hardware identifiers.

===Privacy and Security Assurances===
Riot Games has provided several assurances regarding Vanguard's security:
*The company stated that Vanguard's code has undergone multiple third-party security audits from independent cybersecurity firms.
*Riot maintains that the kernel driver cannot be remotely activated or modified without triggering operating system security protocols.
*The company emphasizes that all data collection is limited to game integrity verification, with strict internal controls preventing mission creep.

====Community Response====
The announcement led to significant backlash from the League of Legends community:
*Multiple Reddit threads reached the front page of r/leagueoflegends expressing concerns.
*Linux users can no longer play League of Legends. r/LeagueofLinux
*Players raised issues about the necessity of kernel-level anti-cheat for a MOBA game.
*Privacy advocates questioned the expansion of kernel-level software to a larger player base.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Anti-cheat software]]
[[Category:Privacy controversies]]
[[Category:Software]]
[[Category:Riot Games]]
[[Category:Articles requiring expansion]]

Riot Vanguard

2025-02-15T17:31:52Z

Enforcer: Included Company Response and Assurances however more sourcing needs to be added.

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = {{PAGENAME}}
| Release Year = 2020
| Product Type = Anti-cheat Software
| In Production = Yes
}}

[[wikipedia:Riot_Vanguard|Riot Vanguard]] is an anti-cheat system developed by Riot Games, initially released for VALORANT in 2020 and later expanded to League of Legends in April of 2024.

==Consumer impact summary==
Overview of concerns that arise from the conduct towards users of the product:
*Privacy: Vanguard is a kernel-level (ring 0) anti-cheat. It has access to everything on your computer. Riot Games is owned by Tencent which has strong ties with the Chinese government.
*Control: Users must have Vanguard running from computer startup to play any Riot games, even when not playing.
*Access: As a kernel-level anti-cheat, Vanguard has the highest level of access to your computer.

==Incidents==
===League of Legends Implementation (April 2024)===
In April 2024, Riot Games announced that Vanguard would become mandatory for all League of Legends players. <ref>https://support-leagueoflegends.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/24169857932435-Riot-Vanguard-FAQ-League-of-Legends</ref> This decision was particularly controversial for several reasons:

*The requirement affected a 14-year-old game that had previously operated without kernel-level anti-cheat.
*Players were required to install Vanguard to continue accessing their accounts and purchased content.
*No opt-out option was provided for players who did not wish to install kernel-level software.
*The implementation affected all regions globally, including areas with strict privacy regulations.
*Players using Linux through Wine/Proton would no longer be able to play the game.

==Concerns==
===Tencent Ownership and Chinese Government Ties===
A major concern surrounding Vanguard stems from Riot Games' ownership by Tencent Holdings, a Chinese technology conglomerate. This ownership, combined with Vanguard's kernel-level access, raises significant security and privacy implications due to Chinese legal requirements, particularly the National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic of China (2017).
The law mandates cooperation with national intelligence efforts from all organizations and citizens. Relevant articles include:

"Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of.
Article 10: As necessary for their work, national intelligence work institutions are to use the necessary means, tactics, and channels to carry out intelligence efforts, domestically and abroad.
Article 18: As required for work, and in accordance with relevant national provisions, national intelligence work institutions may ask organs such as for customs and entry-exit border inspection to provide facilitation such as exemptions from inspection."

These legal requirements raise several concerns:
*Tencent, as a Chinese company, could be legally compelled to provide data or access through Vanguard.
*The kernel-level access could potentially be leveraged for surveillance or data collection beyond anti-cheat purposes.
*Users have no way to verify if or when such access might be utilized.
*The combination of mandatory installation, kernel-level access, and Chinese ownership creates potential security risks for:
**Government employees.
**Corporate users with sensitive data.
**Military personnel.
**Users with access to critical infrastructure.

===Technical Implications===
The kernel-level access combined with potential government compulsion is particularly concerning because:
*Ring 0 access provides complete system control.
*Users cannot monitor or restrict Vanguard's activities at this level.
*The always-on requirement means the system is potentially vulnerable even when not gaming.
*The software could theoretically be used as a backdoor if compelled by authorities.

==Company Response==
===Official Statements===
Riot Games has responded to various concerns about Vanguard through multiple official channels:

{Sources to be added}

*Following the League of Legends implementation announcement, Riot published a detailed FAQ addressing community concerns. They maintained that Vanguard's kernel driver is focused solely on game integrity and doesn't process any personal information.
*Riot's Security Team published a technical blog post explaining that Vanguard's kernel-level implementation is necessary to detect and prevent sophisticated cheating methods that operate at the same level.

Riot Games has expressed that kernel level anticheat is becoming an industry standard, that to be able to defeat cheaters operating at the kernel level is to also be operating at the same level and that this is the only way to stop account botting, ranked boosting and to ban cheaters permanently via using hardware identifiers.

===Privacy and Security Assurances===
Riot Games has provided several assurances regarding Vanguard's security:
*The company stated that Vanguard's code has undergone multiple third-party security audits from independent cybersecurity firms.
*Riot maintains that the kernel driver cannot be remotely activated or modified without triggering operating system security protocols.
*The company emphasizes that all data collection is limited to game integrity verification, with strict internal controls preventing mission creep.

====Community Response====
The announcement led to significant backlash from the League of Legends community:
*Multiple Reddit threads reached the front page of r/leagueoflegends expressing concerns.
*Linux users can no longer play League of Legends. r/LeagueofLinux
*Players raised issues about the necessity of kernel-level anti-cheat for a MOBA game.
*Privacy advocates questioned the expansion of kernel-level software to a larger player base.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Anti-cheat software]]
[[Category:Privacy controversies]]
[[Category:Software]]
[[Category:Riot Games]]
[[Category:Articles requiring expansion]]

Riot Vanguard

2025-02-15T00:41:02Z

Enforcer: /* Typo on the month that vanguard included into league of legends. */

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = {{PAGENAME}}
| Release Year = 2020
| Product Type = Anti-cheat Software
| In Production = Yes
}}

[[wikipedia:Riot_Vanguard|Riot Vanguard]] is an anti-cheat system developed by Riot Games, initially released for VALORANT in 2020 and later expanded to League of Legends in April of 2024.

==Consumer impact summary==
Overview of concerns that arise from the conduct towards users of the product:
*Privacy: Vanguard is a kernel-level (ring 0) anti-cheat. It has access to everything on your computer. Riot Games is owned by Tencent which has strong ties with the Chinese government.
*Control: Users must have Vanguard running from computer startup to play any Riot games, even when not playing.
*Access: As a kernel-level anti-cheat, Vanguard has the highest level of access to your computer.

==Incidents==
===League of Legends Implementation (April 2024)===
In April 2024, Riot Games announced that Vanguard would become mandatory for all League of Legends players. <ref>https://support-leagueoflegends.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/24169857932435-Riot-Vanguard-FAQ-League-of-Legends</ref> This decision was particularly controversial for several reasons:

*The requirement affected a 14-year-old game that had previously operated without kernel-level anti-cheat.
*Players were required to install Vanguard to continue accessing their accounts and purchased content.
*No opt-out option was provided for players who did not wish to install kernel-level software.
*The implementation affected all regions globally, including areas with strict privacy regulations.
*Players using Linux through Wine/Proton would no longer be able to play the game.

==Concerns==
===Tencent Ownership and Chinese Government Ties===
A major concern surrounding Vanguard stems from Riot Games' ownership by Tencent Holdings, a Chinese technology conglomerate. This ownership, combined with Vanguard's kernel-level access, raises significant security and privacy implications due to Chinese legal requirements, particularly the National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic of China (2017).
The law mandates cooperation with national intelligence efforts from all organizations and citizens. Relevant articles include:

"Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of.
Article 10: As necessary for their work, national intelligence work institutions are to use the necessary means, tactics, and channels to carry out intelligence efforts, domestically and abroad.
Article 18: As required for work, and in accordance with relevant national provisions, national intelligence work institutions may ask organs such as for customs and entry-exit border inspection to provide facilitation such as exemptions from inspection."

These legal requirements raise several concerns:
*Tencent, as a Chinese company, could be legally compelled to provide data or access through Vanguard.
*The kernel-level access could potentially be leveraged for surveillance or data collection beyond anti-cheat purposes.
*Users have no way to verify if or when such access might be utilized.
*The combination of mandatory installation, kernel-level access, and Chinese ownership creates potential security risks for:
**Government employees.
**Corporate users with sensitive data.
**Military personnel.
**Users with access to critical infrastructure.

===Technical Implications===
The kernel-level access combined with potential government compulsion is particularly concerning because:
*Ring 0 access provides complete system control.
*Users cannot monitor or restrict Vanguard's activities at this level.
*The always-on requirement means the system is potentially vulnerable even when not gaming.
*The software could theoretically be used as a backdoor if compelled by authorities.

====Community Response====
The announcement led to significant backlash from the League of Legends community:
*Multiple Reddit threads reached the front page of r/leagueoflegends expressing concerns.
*Linux users can no longer play League of Legends. r/LeagueofLinux
*Players raised issues about the necessity of kernel-level anti-cheat for a MOBA game.
*Privacy advocates questioned the expansion of kernel-level software to a larger player base.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Anti-cheat software]]
[[Category:Privacy controversies]]
[[Category:Software]]
[[Category:Riot Games]]
[[Category:Articles requiring expansion]]

Riot Vanguard

2025-02-15T00:26:55Z

Enforcer: Added draft page for Riot Vanguard

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = {{PAGENAME}}
| Release Year = 2020
| Product Type = Anti-cheat Software
| In Production = Yes
}}

[[wikipedia:Riot_Vanguard|Riot Vanguard]] is an anti-cheat system developed by Riot Games, initially released for VALORANT in 2020 and later expanded to League of Legends in April of 2024.

==Consumer impact summary==
Overview of concerns that arise from the conduct towards users of the product:
*Privacy: Vanguard is a kernel-level (ring 0) anti-cheat. It has access to everything on your computer. Riot Games is owned by Tencent which has strong ties with the Chinese government.
*Control: Users must have Vanguard running from computer startup to play any Riot games, even when not playing.
*Access: As a kernel-level anti-cheat, Vanguard has the highest level of access to your computer.

==Incidents==
===League of Legends Implementation (January 2024)===
In January 2024, Riot Games announced that Vanguard would become mandatory for all League of Legends players. <ref>https://support-leagueoflegends.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/24169857932435-Riot-Vanguard-FAQ-League-of-Legends</ref> This decision was particularly controversial for several reasons:

*The requirement affected a 14-year-old game that had previously operated without kernel-level anti-cheat.
*Players were required to install Vanguard to continue accessing their accounts and purchased content.
*No opt-out option was provided for players who did not wish to install kernel-level software.
*The implementation affected all regions globally, including areas with strict privacy regulations.
*Players using Linux through Wine/Proton would no longer be able to play the game.

==Concerns==
===Tencent Ownership and Chinese Government Ties===
A major concern surrounding Vanguard stems from Riot Games' ownership by Tencent Holdings, a Chinese technology conglomerate. This ownership, combined with Vanguard's kernel-level access, raises significant security and privacy implications due to Chinese legal requirements, particularly the National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic of China (2017).
The law mandates cooperation with national intelligence efforts from all organizations and citizens. Relevant articles include:

"Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of.
Article 10: As necessary for their work, national intelligence work institutions are to use the necessary means, tactics, and channels to carry out intelligence efforts, domestically and abroad.
Article 18: As required for work, and in accordance with relevant national provisions, national intelligence work institutions may ask organs such as for customs and entry-exit border inspection to provide facilitation such as exemptions from inspection."

These legal requirements raise several concerns:
*Tencent, as a Chinese company, could be legally compelled to provide data or access through Vanguard.
*The kernel-level access could potentially be leveraged for surveillance or data collection beyond anti-cheat purposes.
*Users have no way to verify if or when such access might be utilized.
*The combination of mandatory installation, kernel-level access, and Chinese ownership creates potential security risks for:
**Government employees.
**Corporate users with sensitive data.
**Military personnel.
**Users with access to critical infrastructure.

===Technical Implications===
The kernel-level access combined with potential government compulsion is particularly concerning because:
*Ring 0 access provides complete system control.
*Users cannot monitor or restrict Vanguard's activities at this level.
*The always-on requirement means the system is potentially vulnerable even when not gaming.
*The software could theoretically be used as a backdoor if compelled by authorities.

====Community Response====
The announcement led to significant backlash from the League of Legends community:
*Multiple Reddit threads reached the front page of r/leagueoflegends expressing concerns.
*Linux users can no longer play League of Legends. r/LeagueofLinux
*Players raised issues about the necessity of kernel-level anti-cheat for a MOBA game.
*Privacy advocates questioned the expansion of kernel-level software to a larger player base.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Anti-cheat software]]
[[Category:Privacy controversies]]
[[Category:Software]]
[[Category:Riot Games]]
[[Category:Articles requiring expansion]]