nah bro 125.00 ten percent is 12.50. Not 2.50

with founder costing 100 dollars, it went down to 90, saving you 10 bucks.

so 90 to a 112.50 when it was on sale was 22.50 so now it's without the sale and that 90 to 125 is 35 bucks. The price increase is just 7.50 it's something sure. but at least when you buy it now you will make up the influence people didn't get because they spent less for what ever that means. I am supposed to be rank four but I am rank three because of the sale.

Though I do have bloodline.

Yes you having to pay back the money you saved is working as intended. Otherwise, people will have a permanent X amount of money off of what ever they buy when it's not on sale. There will likely be another sale before exposition. If they are smart.

Posted By Gunghoe at 9:00 PM - Thu Jun 01 2017

nah bro 125.00 ten percent is 12.50. Not 2.50

not sure if you understood what i meant, i got the founders package for $90 and thought that upgrading from founders to bloodline would cost $25 after the sale. but it actually costs $35. for some reason i would have to pay back the $10 i saved on the founders pack in order to then upgrade to bloodline.

my bad habit of editing after stating something. :( Yeah, it's working as intended. because you upgrade from one to another, when it's not on sale you have to spend the full price as a whole There will likely be another sale. They don't want people for example in higher tiers have a floating X amount of money off on the next package.

This example might help clear things up

imagine buying a $60 game on a %50 sale, so you pay $30

now lets say you want to buy a $20 dlc

imaging it asks you to pay $50 for the $20 dlc because it wants to pay back what you saved from that sale. that's what happening here and its not the way things are normally done so i'm wondering if its a mistake

Nothing is wrong, that's how it goes. You got it on sale. The same thing happened to the early birds on kickstarter.

If you want to upgrade it does suck. But it's mostly thought of, if you wanted something higher, should have bought it while it was on special.

thanks for the explanation Caspian, i was hoping it would be treated as an upgrade rather then being a refund/purchase of a different package but oh well, realistically i only missed out on saving $12.50.

Yeah, the alternative is to have separate values for the amount paid if refunded and the "upgrade value" of packages like a certain other crowdfunded game coughstarcitizencough which while it does reward the earlier backers for having picked things up on sale (effectively rolling over their discounts as they upgrade), it is also a nightmare on the back-end and has helped perpetuate a grey market for packages/items with varying levels of rarity and built-in discounts

Posted By Caspian at 9:49 PM - Thu Jun 01 2017

The system is behaving as expected.

You are thinking of each pledge package in the store as a DLC, when in reality each is a separate product.

Using your own example, imagine buying a game for $60 on sale for 50% off, so you pay $30.

Now lets say you decide you want the Collector's Edition instead. So you take the game back to the store, request a refund, and then buy the Collector's Edition.

When you receive the refund, you're going to get back the amount you paid ($30), not the original $60 price of the game. So you're going to pay full price for the Collector's Edition, regardless of what you paid for the Standard Edition.

Just found this thread after getting no formal responses to my own inquiries. So now that I understand the official "rationale", I'd like to just say a few words on this.

Treating these transactions as refunds + new purchases does not align with the language you're using in the store. It says UPGRADE. It does not say REFUND. Furthermore, if a REFUND + NEW PURCHASE is how you're treating this, it's a tacit admission that REFUNDs are permissible as a matter of policy.

But more to the point, this rationale does not align with what you're trying to achieve.

You folks at SBS are trying to raise money from individual backers to fund development of your game. You are then marketing periodically to these same backers (like me) to come here and spend more money. I'm getting your mailers. I'm interested in spending more.

But when we come to your store, we find that there's no upgrade path from the tiers we've purchased from prior promotions. Worse, you're now telling us that we need to PAY BACK the discounts we got on prior sales in order to spend more money on new sales to help you fund the game? What?

How do you not see this as problematic? It's perverted logic. You're stepping on your own proverbial penises. One thing I'll say about Star Citizen, I've never encountered these kinds of conflicts. I've taken advantage of their concept sales. I've upgraded them. Pricing has never been a problem like it is here, and folks, let's be perfectly clear. You're selling concepts. There's no tangible product people are going home with. This is not a retail transaction.

Needless to say, these policies are not only frustrating but they're actually starting to sour me on the project because I'm starting to wonder what other sorts of logical peculiarities I may encounter down the line. You're losing me on the dumb stuff.

If you're explaining, you're losing.

How/why are you doing things that are so obviously counter productive to raising the capital you want/need?