No Man's Sky studio Hello Games just confirmed publicly that they won't be able to use their flood insurance to cover for the lost materials.
That's...bullshit? Isn't the point of "Flood Insurance" to cover damages from floods???
Sounds about right for an insurance company...
Blah,Blah,Blah. We get it, you lost your work and money. Now, you got the attention you wanted. Launch the kickstarter already and skip all the bullshit .
i see through these scrubs all day. This whole tweeter thing is a scheme to get people to donate over kickstarter once its ready They saw the opportunity through that new space mmo that raised over 30 mil, they saw it through oculus rift, and so much more. these guys were never insured for flooding to begin with, so why go on tweeter and mention the insurance company as a whole? gtfo
@alithesnake don't be so f**king dis respectful, prick. insurance people are assholes in UK, they are really stingy when it comes to insurance. heres an example: You tell your car insurance people you park your car on your front driveway. Your aunt stays over or whatever and you park your car on the road or somewhere different. It gets smashed into. you tell the insurnce people this and their respone is guaranteed to be: 'woah, you told us you parked it on the drive. that's your fault buster. you aint gtting no mone from us' so it's probably quite hard to qualify for flood insurance, so just like the guuy said, because heyre in a flood risk zone they are automatically exempt from any insurance help. it sucks big time.
That's LONDON, also affected in Toronto. Over half a million were out of power too! Just now they are almost done restoring power. So far I think about 25 thousand pepople are still out of power. This been more than one week now. Believe it or not, this is actually the biggest news in Toronto Hydro's history. All the houses were frozen after few days of no power. I woke up breathing out steam. lol!
Ali and grizzli, you say it as if they planned the flood (and the lack of help from insurance) and, quite frankly, I find your indifferent ill-will very cynical and ignorant. This is a set back for this studio, and a game that many of us saw potential in it's trailer. I hope they come back stronger, even if it's with Kickstarter (which apparently bothers you).
I'm surprised the Insurance company could legally sell flood insurance to someone who they clearly knew was in a flood-zone. On the flip-side... why on earth did they NOT read the fine print on their policy before buying it?? It's like all the idiots here in the U.S. who didn't read the fine print on their home mortgages, and helped cause the 2008 housing crash. Even more at fault was the damn government who forced banks to give people those messed up mortgages because of the "community reinvestment act" that the Democrats passed under Clinton.
"I'm surprised the Insurance company could legally sell flood insurance to someone who they clearly knew was in a flood-zone." Sadly, a lot of insurance companies are like that. My grandparents' house was damaged in a flood a few years back, and their insurance company refused to cover it because they are in a flood zone. It's funny how the flood zone was never mentioned when they first signed up for the insurance company! They were assured that everything would be covered and that their area of town was not in the flood zone.
Insurance = bullshit (unless the gov't tightly regulates them)
No. Insurance is BS because government regulates it. In a free market they'd have to compete, and pulling this kind of stunt would lose them customers instantly. Customers would drop this sort of company and switch to an alternative with a better track record. Companies don't survive in a free market if they don't provide for their customers. The moment government starts to regulate, company lawyers craft the wording of contracts and regulations in such a way that the company can pull stunts and get away with crap. And because regulations increase costs and entry barriers, competing firms can't enter the market to provide a better service. In a free market, the ultimate barrier to success is whether the company provides for the customer. In a regulated economy, the ultimate barrier s whether the company violates government regulation, which they rarely do because the companies and government are in bed together.
^^^ If you think an insurance company is going to be better without government regulation despite what happened in the poorly regulated banking sector, then there is no real point arguing with you. Free market = Bigfoot Enjoy the holidays!!!
It's a double edge sword, @Alethian makes some good points, but the insurance industry is VERY different from any other industry. Where most industries are all about minimizing risk, insurance is about profiting from it. The idea that less regulations would encourage more competition, and thusly better rates, isn't guaranteed to work. For example, Without regulation, you'd be lucky to find a company that would EVER offer affordable flood coverage in a known flood zone, because they'd NEVER make a profit from it. Governments could require coverage, and insurers could certainly afford it to an extent. But, The other side of the coin, however, is that if insurers make a habit of dipping into the coffers in order to cover folks who live in risk zones, more people would becoming willing to live with more risk. That isn't sustainable either. Really, what we need is benevolent capitalism. As consumers, we should reward companies who strive to do right by the communities they serve. That way they government wouldn't need to get involved. And companies wouldn't just race to the bottom to cut costs, but would be rewarded for doing things the right way instead of hiding behind lawyers and fine print.
1. I said a free market. The poorly regulated banking sector you refer to was, as you say, regulated. Hence, your counter is invalid. 2. In absolutely no sense does America, or any other developed country, have a free market banking sector. The banking sector is run by a syndicate of banking corporations, organized under the auspices of the Federal Reserve, which trades in fiat currency admitting no limits. Here is a simple introduction to the modern banking system: http://www.youtube.com/watc... 3. I don't just "think" an insurance company would operate better *without* regulation - I know it. There is plenty economic data available for those who want to study free market insurance systems. For example, under the almost-100% free market insurance system in America during the late-19th/early-20th centuries, insurance was (a) incredibly cheap, (b) had no co-pays, (c) covered everything. This applied to damage insurance, health insurance, and other forms of insurance. The system began to go bad after the government began to regulate the industry. 4. I understand that people associate the evils of the free market and capitalism with the American system as it is today - they are raised being told by the defenders and critics of America that this is a free and capitalist country. It isn't, by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, it isn't even capitalistic by Marx's definition of capitalism. What we have is a corporatist or syndicalist system, moving toward outright fascism. The defense of free market insurance doesn't constitute a defense of the status quo in America. The America health industry, for example, has been corporatist since about the 50s or 60s (ish), and getting worse with each decade. EDIT, re mhuntrjr's remarks: I won't speak to the benevolent capitalism remark in detail (kinda off topic), other than to say that I agree with you, and that's how capitalism has historically operated; but regarding whether there would be insurance available for high risk areas, I'll say this. First, there may be, at higher price. Why ought the consumer to pay more? Because it's a riskier area, and correcting damage requires more resources. Second, let's say there is no insurance in the area. Then you live there at your own risk, and should move. Humans should not be forced to subsidize the risky lifestyle of some.
@Alethian First talk what you know not what fox news tells you. The banking industry was slowly but surely deregulated by republicans and some Dems during the last term of Clinton and the two terms of Bush, that is where the crash came from. Rules and regulations set up after the great depression were removed, specifically a law making it illegal for banks to own securities companies. Deregulation means rampit unchecked capitalism which is pretty close to what they have in China, isn't that place great. Your foolish ideal of no regulation leaves people open to risk, monetary loss and worse death with no recourse from global companies. Laws and regulations are in place for a reason. I don't think it's cool this insurance company isn't paying for the devs losses but we don't know all the facts. Second your free market is exactly what the video game industry is. Last I checked one of the worst companies in America EA is still around? Why because enough "gamers" would rather deal with their crappy tactics and assaults on consumer rights and ownership they stay in business. Your free market insurance idea would see exactly that, poor large companies would stay open while small and medium size companies would die out.
Exactly rambi80, people forget that an insurance company is just that, a company. A company or business primary goal is to make money, not to do the morally just thing. If an insurance company could they would take all of the customers money for years and then deny them every claim they make. Why? Because paying out insurance claims is not a good way to be profitable. This same thing is true of a health insurance company. Crap like this is why it is necessary to have government regulations. The mistake that people make is thinking that government regulations mean that a free market doesn't exist. There is a huge difference between a free market and a mercenary market. This is why government regulations is important, those who think otherwise are either blind or in a position where they have enough money to ignore reality.
@Ittoryu I saved my last bubble for just this sort of attack. Thanks for not disappointing me. 1. I don't watch Fox News, or any other mainstream news outlet. I study economics, sociology, philosophy, political theory, and history. I draw my points from that study. 2. The deregulation story is inadequate for one primary reason: though some regulations were removed or not enforced, others were added. 3. The causes of the recent financial collapse were various. You cite deregulation as one factor. Yes, the growth of securitization was a significant cause of the systemic instability, and therefore of the crash. However, another cause was the implicit guarantee provided to the banking and insurance industry by the Federal Reserve and the Clinton/Bush administrations, that in the event of an economic downturn government and the Fed would step in to assist with liquidity issues. This encouraged rampant "speculation" in the securities market, particularly in the high-risk area. As it happened, when the crisis occurred the government did not step in immediately, and as a result Bear Sterns and JP Morgan went under. Government stepped in only when they realized they were less than 24 hours from the fiat house of cards coming down. Another cause you don't mention was the government- and Fed-induced housing boom, spurred on by the Clinton-era drive for "home ownership" and the historically-low interest rates artificially set by the Fed, that is, by the corporatist banking industry. This boom created easy credit and subsequent buying, which overvalued property and stocks, which in turn corrected starting in '07. The same thing happened in the '20s and caused the Great Depression. 4. "Deregulation means rampit [sic] unchecked capitalism which is pretty close to what they have in China." I'm sorry, but that is simply false. Either you aren't thinking these issues through for yourself, or you don't understand the meaning of the words "deregulation" and "capitalism" and the nature of the Chinese economic system. 5. "Your foolish ideal of no regulation leaves people open to risk, monetary loss and worse death." Risk, loss, and death are facts of life. You cannot regulate or legislate them away. The question is: does a socialistic or a capitalistic system increase material prosperity and thus render us better able to deal with these issues? I have been arguing in favor of capitalism, i.e. private control of the means of production, as against socialized control (whether communal or state). 6. "I don't think it's cool this insurance company isn't paying for the devs losses." I don't think it's cool either. I'm simply explaining why they can get away with it, so that readers will, hopefully, point the blame at the root cause. 7. "Second your free market is exactly what the video game industry is." No, it's not. The economy is a connected association. You cannot isolate one "industry" and called it entirely free market or entirely socialistic. The gaming sector takes place within the context of fiat currency and government regulation, hence it is not a free market industry. 8. "Last I checked one of the worst companies in America EA is still around? Why because enough "gamers" would rather deal with their crappy tactics and assaults on consumer rights and ownership they stay in business." Freedom is a wonderful thing. It allows consumers to select between competing options. If consumers would "rather" play EA games than not, EA's behavior notwithstanding, then that is their choice. If they want EA to change, stop buying the products.
@Alethian Benevolent capitalism as always been an ideal that we have always fallen embarrassingly short of. Since it's inception, we've had transatlantic slavery,, industrial revolution labor practices, railroading, and now we see the effects of consumerism on less developed nations. Capitalism has ALWAYS been about screwing people over in order to make a profit. That said, it certainly doesn't have to be. With the issue of flood insurance, I recognize that these people are operating in a risky location. The whole point of seeking insurance insurance is to have protection against potential risks. How is it an ethical business practice to only offer such protection in locations where these events aren't likely to happen? These companies are more than happy to take a customers money when the sun is shining, while they are accruing no costs at all. They should at least find a way to work to help the community they serve in a time of need. I don't think less risky people should subsidize those who live with risk. Why not set aside a flood fund paid for by the subscriptions of people who live in floodzones. Place an annual cap on flood payouts for that region. Require participants to have adequate flood protection in place (pumps, elevated electrical equipment etc) This way, these folks are subsidizing their own protection, and the risk is split between the insurer and the insurer. If a year goes by, and the remaining fund exceeds what was paid out, insurers get a nice profit. If the fund gets used up, the insurees are on their own for the remainder of the year. Fair enough, and a benevolent community service. Companies could compete for these customers by offering bigger flood funds, and help with water proofing.
Alethian you're an absolute idiot and you need to stfu. The banking industry was regulated? Hmm...who were the ones who LOBBIED to remove restrictions on mortgages and made it possible to literally give everyone a mortgage. Oh that's right the banking industry. Who took advantage of that and sold mortgages to people who had no means to pay for it? Oh right...the banks. Who were the ones who sold JUNK loans and THEN bet against them straight after because they knew it was junk. Oooooooohhh you mean the unregulated banking sector? It's because of absolute brainwashed morons like you that this Country is in the state it is. Dumbasses who fight against their own interests. All you morons can do then is rag against those so called evil socialist Countries who rank far ahead of the US in everything. From happiness, to health, education, etc. The owners of this Country will not stop until we're all working under China like wages. I suggest you go and jerk off to your 'don't tread on me' and Ronald Reagan' poster you moron.
Couldn't have said it any better myself Alethian. When the government forces banks to make loans to people who can't afford it (sub-prime loans), the housing crisis happened and that was regulation, Thank you carter and Clinton for that.
In regards to the deregulation of the mortgage banking sector debate above: The fall of Wall Street was credit default swaps. JPMorgan started them in the late 90's and that single handedly crashed mortgage back securities pools and securitization. Bush did deregulate the mortgage giants and left to their own devices they robbed Peter to pay Paul until Peter died and Paul asked for everything to be paid now. I was a mortgage security auditor and witnessed first hand the shady derivative practice. I saw countrywide go against FMLA regs and allow people to be approved on simply stating their income and assets. Everything was LTV (loan to value) driven. Since appraisals were consistently coming in high, even those with questionable FICO and credit profiles could get 100% financing. All the mortgages were bundled into securities and traded on the open market. Everyone from your retirement agent to courtiers like Greece invested in these securities thinking there was no risk. Little did everyone know the Lions share of these "AAA" loans were Adjustable Rate Loans given to people who didn't even put one penny down on the house and whose income was simply stated not verified. Fast forward and values start to drop. People margins came due and interest rates went from the 2-4 year fixed rate of 3.5% to 8-10%. Since the loan to value was frozen banks wouldn't refinance them. People went from 700 a month mtg pmnt to 1700. Since there was none of their own money vested in the home people simply walked away. Hence the foreclosure epidemic that we are just getting out of. So So in closing, the loans are no longer performing and the securities are not paying dividends. Pools collapsed overnight. Entire retirement savings and counties life's blood evaporated over night. Banks took no responsibility and we got TARP. We the tax payers bailed out the banks for their bad choices. Credit lines disappeared save to those with 750 credit scores. Banks got their money back and we the people lost our asses. This is what happens with no government over sight.
It's funny that Alethian gets so many uninformed disagrees despite the fact that he's obviously well read, states his opinions clearly and concisely with facts to back them up, and that he is absolutely correct. In the USA, with few exceptions, Republicans = corporate interests, Democrats = unions & other special interests, and neither care about the health or interests of the American people. They use these groups as a means to get elected and maintain their power, to essentially become the aristocracy of this country for decades, and not to serve their constituents as they are elected to do. Unfortunately most people are too busy and ignorant of too many facts to make informed decisions about who to elect or which laws to support. That's why we need to move back to a constitutional republic as originally intended in the Constitution. That's the only way to keep power close to the people, and out of the hands of corporations and federal politicians.
@Alethian: No, without regulation they would just collude like the global oil cartels do. Put down your dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged. Laissez-faire economics is the most childish and naive (and intellectually lazy) of philosophies.
Alethian, Randian Libertarianism is best summed up as follows: "Let people do as they will regardless of who gets hurt." It is a violently and aggressively individualistic political philosophy that is incompatible with the actual nature of the human experience. It's a total denial of the fact that to be human is to live among other humans. Time to shelve Atlas Shrugged methinks, the only people whom that book does favours for are the sociopathic assholes of the world that comprise the economic elite. Randian libertarianism is crypto-fascist - it's all about offering a quaint illusion of mobility and freedom while the masses get completely fucked over by the actual elite designers OF that political philosophy. The elite justify their draconian behaviour by the central tenet I've already mentioned, and when backed into a corner insist that everyone whom they oppress and exploit are capable of the same empowerment just to keep them in check - to efface the systemic exploitation those people are enduring. Mobility for the non-elite is an illusion propagated within such an order which ultimately serves to reinforce the power and social status of the elite.
"It's a double edge sword" Aaaaaaand end debate.
Alethian- Thank you!! Someone who understands how things actually work! Government regulation is always the cause of these problems! I just lost my health insurance due to government regulation and since i'm not paying 3x the premium ($142-->$380) for a policy with 5x higher deductible (was $500... Obamacare is $2500), plus it wont allow me to use either major hospital in my area if something terrible happens. lol. It was government regulation that caused the Financial crash of 2008 as well. Because of Carter's "community reinvestment act", which Clinton made further reaching, Banks were forced to give mortgages to high risk consumers with no down payment (20% is the historical norm), creating a bubble that almost took the entire economy down with it.
@Alelethian, insurance in our country isn't really dictated by customer service it dictated by how high up the list their quote is on comparison websites, its very easy to hide things in the small print. So the reality is that pulling stunts like this makes your quote cheaper and therefore moves your quote up the list of insurers. And the comparison website collobrate with the insurance company's to inflate market prices in a similar way to the oil industry.
Thanks Obama /s Edit: Lol am I the only one who's ever heard of the "Thanks Obama" joke/meme/gif? If you haven't, it's a joke. Calm down.
Yeah, cuz insurance companies haven't been screwing people over for decades... besides, Obama has been more heavily involved in HEALTH insurance... which this is not. Keep up, man.
there a UK based developer so its thanks cameron lol
"Thanks Obama" I hope that was sarcasm. If not, it's ridiculous on several levels.
its a reddit joke lol
Lol I've heard of it...It's just a joke people calm down. http://i.imgur.com/qpJa6.gi...
Flood insurance is the biggest crock in the industry and is always the one you run into the most issues with. I find it funny that, though in a "flood risk" area, they were still allowed to pay into it. I feel so bad for the devs. I was seeing this go the way of Kickstarter anyway and now, more than ever, it seems like a real option for the developer. They definitely have my backing.
It's a misleading headline. This isn't flood insurance, just normal property insurance that they hoped would cover this flood damage. Insurance companies do generally suck though...
Ah. I was unaware of this.
As if a small indie dev would actually have flood insurance. LOL. This is similar to earth quake or fire insurance in CA. It's something everybody need but nobody can afford.
I was thinking the same thing. I think this mean that we are going to have to start donating to them if we wanna play the game. Which i am totally ok doing because the game looked freaking awesome.
I'm not to sure what's in their flood insurance policy. But most of the insurance companies have had major changes on what they provide. One of my friends condos was completely destroyed during a hurricane the insurance only paid for electrical repairs and some necessary things. Value went from 1.5 million straight 400k, they had to replace their own flooring, stoves, microwaves,etc. When you're in a flood zone risk insurance do tend to pay for less. Now that's here in the Southern part of America, I don't know about their area.
They should just call Sony up. Strike an exclusive deal and move into SCEE for now.
I approve of this, 100% :)
If they made a donation that would be great PR but if they did it for exclusivity it would look like they have taken advantage of company in need and in some peoples eyes will look like exploitation.
Yeah, that really sounds ridiculous. I'm pretty sure insurance companies don't tell people who are in high-risk zone "we won't take your money", but of course when shit happens they try their hardest to backtrack.
Kickstarter guys? Would be a ton of people who would be willing to help.
They have to know this, now. Let's see if they decide to start a campaign.
@SynGamer That's not quite true, I'm assuming you don't own a home. I have a house, but lucky for me I don't live a high flood zone but I have a friend that does and when Sandy hit, his whole house was destroyed and he had flood insurance and he thought he was covered, but when the insurance company said they can't pay for everything he was like "Well how come?"....well....come to find out that the insurance only covered 1st floor not 2nd floor levels. Fucked up right? It was in clause that was not disclosed to him during closing, if he had wanted that it would of been much more to coverage that sq ft of the 2nd floor.
Insurance companies make their money by NOT actually covering people for things. It's the most crooked legal industry there is.
Que the crowd funding/cancellation of No Man's Sky in 3... 2... 1...
It's gonna take 1 week max
oh boy.....they are a very small studio i doubt they can afford this alone.
i hope you know a handful of USC students made the psn title Flow.
or how Valve recruited only a few college kids to make portal.
I'm sorry for this little studio that is creating a great game plus all the people who have lost their homes.
and that's why you always read the small print... hopefully someone will lob them some cash to sort it all out, wouldn't bank on the insurers doing it though
Quick! To the Kickstarter-mobile!
I'll kickstart this game to the moon and back.
This game could get 3-5 millions easily on Kickstarter, with the amount of buzz generated by the reveal trailer and now this unexpected flood attracted even more sympathy.
Funny how the insurance company had no problem taking money from them for flood insurance & I'm sure in no way mentioned the clause about being in a flood zone discernible Off topic: I love Chris Rock's routine where he says insurance should be called 'in case shit happens' & that if nothing does, you should get your money back! :P
Wow.....this aint good news. The gaming industry should assist these guys.
This is all sounding like a ploy to get free backing from gamers or a publisher. The only good game from VGX and this happens smh.
Human beings and conspiracies... I belief you and they are aliens secretly trying to control our mind with this fantastic looking game, just to sleep with our mothers
Lol u actually made me chuckle a little. I was drunk when I wrote that comment. Let's just hope they quickly recover from this.
Really? You believe they summoned a storm to let their current work place (and 50K other homes nearby) flood?
Maybe they can take their insurance money, and make a game that doesn't look like a bore fest.
Advantage MS (or Sony or EA)
This is saddening... I hope they can pick up the pieces as the entire gaming sphere is avidly looking forward to No Mans Sky, and this is some pretty harsh tribulations to overcome. I wonder what llif they'll be another indie game movie that chronicles this setback...
They need to set up a kickstarter, all the hype around this game would give them all the money they need, and more.
... Not trying to be that guy... But, how could they not gave offsite backups of No Mans Sky? ... and.. I question if it was ever real... I mean, surely a big publisher will pick it up and pay for it to be real now. But whats the chances the flood messes up the star of the VGX awards? I mean, it was the best thing about the show and for its procedural generation, hype hype hype hype.
1. Far as I know nobody said the entire game was lost, Just everything they need to actually make it. Also being that it procedural, pretty sure its not that difficult to store. Assets may be lost, but the rest should be fine. 2. Few years back 1 guy programmed a procedural galaxy with trillions of stars with realistic size and distance. So the idea that what they were doing was fluke or was far too much for a couple people to handle isn't the case. (That's not to say what they were attempting wasn't something "new", they just aren't in "unknown territory" with regards to the concept.) Coincidence is hard for people to accept, which is why conspiracy theories exist. You can ponder all the "what ifs" but in the end it was a coincidence, nothing more.