Star Citizen Megathread - Star Marine isn't doomed after all! - Games

-snip-

[QUOTE=Hezzy;50522871] I would warn against buying any more ships or packages from CIG until at least they show more of their game, or release something more substantial. [/QUOTE] Will you repost this message every time they show more of their game and release something substantial?

Jesus fucking christ, this thread is a mess.

I love how both sides of this fight are generally based on one thing: Star Citizen's official information releases. I wonder if they had just stayed completely quiet and sites didnt feel like reporting on its fundage every 10-15 million, what this whole debacle would look like? Both sides are bitching and complaining about things they don't fully understand yet, noone in this thread (nor SA, nor derek, nor the army of people arguing on both sides) have full information on how the game is ACTUALLY doing, so essentially it just devolves into people interpreting something vague in two ways then fighting over it. If star citizen is a scam, well damn good job you spotted it for what it was, guess you can save your money and move on. If star citizen is legit, well damn I guess you have to make the decision on whether you want to fund it, or just pass it up if it isn't your cup of tea. Literally nothing else matters, some dude spending 10,000$ on virtual starships does not affect you, nor does someone making fun of that guy, chill out and stop taking this so seriously.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50523484]Like, the thing is, there are arguments that I have about Star Citizen that Derek Smart has also said, but that I didn't take them from Derek Smart. I was, and always will be critical of Chris Roberts hands-on, micromanaging approach to directing a game studio, because I feel like it's dated, it's from the time when he made Wing Commander, where the names of the game designer went on the cover of the game. But apparently, because that's something that Derek has said, that idea is wrong, despite there being ample evidence of Star Citizen suffering heavily from management problems. The obsessive, continuous attacks on Derek Smart and the goons are shutting down discussion of the game and quite frankly, they only serve to perpetuate the notion that Star Citizen is some weird sort of cult with Derek Smart as the devil and Chris Roberts as God where you show your devotion by buying ships. elixwhitetail could choose to completely ignore Derek Smart and keep discussion about the game civil but he goes out of his way to insert him everywhere. And just to be clear, Derek Smart didn't send me here, nor did the goons, nor did anybody. I was an FPer for 7 years before buying an SA account. I DO read the SA Star Citizen thread, but I am also subscribed to the RSI newsletter, because I have a (mostly academic, I can't afford the game) interest in Star Citizen and what is happening to it and it's development. Derek Smart doesn't even know of this thread.[/QUOTE] elix goes way too far with the derek shit, many sc fans do and it doesn't help with the cult accusations. but anyone who's been around this topic a long time can see the reasons for it lets look at what this argument boils down to. over the last few weeks hezzy has brought up the following damning evidence that CIG is going down the toilet: -their office door is RSI themed instead of just a pane of glass -they didn't go to e3 -they changed the TOS an optimist or a 'fan' could easily justify these or dismiss them as trivial to the state of the project. a pessimist or 'detractor' could join the dots and suggest that these are cracks in the facade hiding the imminent collapse of CIG. that's conformation bias for you, and arguing the minutia of this shit will never get anywhere for either party. so why does it keep coming up? this is dr smart's MO; he latches on to a relatively small piece of info (sometimes completely fabricated) and announces it as yet another piece of damning evidence that CIG is about to collapse. he's been at it what, at least a year now? if you scroll down his twitter feed it's like a picture of actual insanity, like a stereotypical conspiracy nut who sees illuminati messages in the media now it's totally unfair to lump in anyone critical of SC with him, but unfortunately the sheer amount of shit he (and others of course) produce just reduces the signal to noise ratio for anyone else who is critical of SC. obviously it's fallacious to say "DS said what you said -> DS has been wrong in the past -> you are wrong", but you can kind of see it as code for "we've heard this shit a thousand times, we don't care"

[QUOTE=Why485;50523339] Oh shit, I didn't mean to reply seriously.[/QUOTE] Now you're getting it!

-snip-

Why do people even bother to post what they think when it comes to supporters/derek-smarter's? I just want to see information about the game and all the last pages have been is endless walls of bitching. If the game fails, great I'm out 30 dollars (which was well spent just on what we have now). If it doesn't, great I've got a whole game. Why does anyone want to come into the main thread of the game and talk about how much they hate it? What is the point? There's no greater good there. You're just trying to piss people off for the sake of an argument. Everyone knows the risk when they crowdfund any work in progress title. I'll be out 30 (or whatever my package was years ago), some will be out 20,000. If they have that kind of money to spend on virtual goodies, they won't miss it if it all goes to hell.

Imagine a small to mid size game studio that is crowdfunding their game. Out of the blue, as the game is somewhere between 50% and 90% complete people start demanding refunds for those donations. Its not all spend but an obvious significant chunk has, is it fair to give the donors refunds? What will the people who dont want refunds but just want the funding people pledged to go into the game? Do all THOSE consumers get left out high and dry because some of the donors demanded refunds? Is allowing a percentage of donors to pull funds and jeopardize the development in the game when half the money is already spend fair to everyone else who funded based on the pledge number other consumers guaranteed?

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50523979]Complaints about ToS aren't exclusive to Star Citizen drama either, there was a HUGE shitstorm caused by Steam's ToS and EULA. I hate that I can't talk about it because Derek Smart is involved in some form.[/QUOTE] You're welcome to talk about it all you want in my books. Not a fan of abusive ToS either... though I am forced to also join the choir of "pretty much any other software ToS is the same", because unfortunately they are. [QUOTE=Big Bang;50523484]Like, the thing is, there are arguments that I have about Star Citizen that Derek Smart has also said, but that I didn't take them from Derek Smart. I was, and always will be critical of Chris Roberts hands-on, micromanaging approach to directing a game studio, because I feel like it's dated, it's from the time when he made Wing Commander, where the names of the game designer went on the cover of the game. But apparently, because that's something that Derek has said, that idea is wrong, despite there being ample evidence of Star Citizen suffering heavily from management problems. The obsessive, continuous attacks on Derek Smart and the goons are shutting down discussion of the game and quite frankly, they only serve to perpetuate the notion that Star Citizen is some weird sort of cult with Derek Smart as the devil and Chris Roberts as God where you show your devotion by buying ships. elixwhitetail could choose to completely ignore Derek Smart and keep discussion about the game civil but he goes out of his way to insert him everywhere.[/QUOTE] Derek Smart will find some shred of something (that might not even be real) and write a 3000 word article about how said tiny thing means Star Citizen is a scam/doomed project/*insert belief of the day here*. I've only seen this kind of obsession from the tinfoil crowd. I'm hoping no one compares you to him because that would be wildly unfair and ridiculous. But yeah I have to agree, discussions about Star Citizen have a problem: trolls on one side and cultists on the other. It's why I stopped reading the subreddits, the forums, and any other news/discussion but this thread. My personal thoughs on it: if SC ever actually comes out, it will be a huge deal for gaming. If. I want it to happen so bad, but I'm not going to blindly believe in it... I just don't feel like the doubters have been very convincing so far, but I encourage their pessimism: keep CIG on their toes!

-snip-

As I recall, Big Bang, you were absolutely convinced Star Citizen must be some kind of scam or mismanaged nightmare based on the fact that the devs weren't focusing on the features you wanted them to focus on to the exclusion of all else. Netcode and dynamic instancing, I believe. I still find that idea as ridiculous today as I did back then, as game development need not follow such a rigid timeline. And just as I pointed out to you back then, I've been with this project from the beginning, and seen them do things with this game engine that nobody believed could be done before. They've taken CryEngine and transformed it into something far more versatile, to the point the industry has started unofficially calling it StarEngine. Netcode won't be a hurdle. And for someone who claims to know so much about progamming, it's pretty amusing to me that you'd completely disregard all the R&D and trial and error that's pretty much guaranteed to be associated with a project like this. You back them with the understanding that there's no publisher, that they're going to try and make a game more ambitious than any made before. On an engine that wasn't designed with said type of game in mind. And you expect it to be done on time? That's pretty naive, and indicates a lack of understanding of game development. You know how triple A titles never announce until they're close to release? That's because developing the game itself takes an indefinite amount of time.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50524224]The proper analogy would be this: You know Tony, Tony wants to make a pizza place, and everyone knows that Tony makes the best pizzas, but he needs cash for his new and revolutionary pizza place. He says that if you give him $2000 dollars now, you'll get all the pizzas you want for 3 months after the place has opened, and you say, well, what a swell deal, so you give him the money, and he tells you that in 1 year he'll get his place set up and you'll get your pizzas then. It's been 3 years now, though, and Tony hasn't completed his pizza place. You say, hey, what gives Tony, you said a year! Tony says that quality pizza places take time and money to make, and he underestimated the amount of money and effort it would take for him to make his dream pizza parlor, so he needs more money and 5 more years to deliver. You rightfully ask for your $2000 as Tony has failed to deliver on his promise to give you all the pizzas you want for 3 months, but Tony says that he's already spent your $2000 building what currently stands of his establishment, which is far from complete. Now, you're left without either your $2000 or your 3 months of free pizzas, while Tony is under no obligation on fulfilling that promise he made to you. Does this sound fair?[/QUOTE] this is weird, it's like you don't understand crowdfunding, and then make an analogy that shows the exact flaw in your reasoning??? you didn't preorder a pizza, you funded him to make the parlour because you really want a good pizza place in the neighbourhood, he sweetened the deal by giving you free pizzas when it opens 3 years in, you ask for a refund, even though tony is still trucking along diligently building the place, hiring chefs, buying equipment. it's taking longer because he didn't realise how long it would take, but he's still making a good faith effort. he can't give you your $2000 back... he spent it on the project! so either you let him keep going, and eventually it either falls through, or you get a pizza place: maybe good, maybe bad. OR you sue him now and send him into bankruptcy, scrap whatever chance of success the place had, and recoup a tiny fraction of your original investment

[QUOTE=krail9;50524503]and recoup a tiny fraction of your original investment[/QUOTE]Given the drop in value of the Australian dollar both you and I would actually profit if we refunded. [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] proof that Star Citizen is a good investment

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50522273][media]https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/742341326608424960[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/741721947994787840[/media] Hezzy's concerns about the new ToS are a total coincidence, right? [video=youtube;hNOeZnMjVJo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNOeZnMjVJo[/video] Drake Dragonfly concept sale on Friday. It'll cost $35 and come with LTI, and apparently will also be sold as a two-pack due to its utility. [URL="https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/332357"]They're also holding a silly contest in which everyone is encouraged to submit shitty drawings of what they picture the Dragonfly concept to look like.[/URL] Entries must be hand-drawn and shitty, if they are "too good" they're disqualified. The person who is the closest to the concept gets a free Dragonfly, and the person who is the farthest from the concept gets one -- the best and worst guesses are the prizes this time.[/QUOTE] his twitter is the really obnoxious and he seems like an arrogant jealous jerk. He made his shitgame and just shitpost on star citizen all days. What the fuck is his problem?

can i come into this thead to read about star citizen once without hearing about d.smart please you'd think he's the main character or something

The thing that gets me with this shit is two fold; Firstly that Derek smart thinks that he has the position to criticize both development and business practices at CiG despite being a perfect example of the exact things hes claiming they are And secondly, (and this applies to hezzy and basically anyone else that comes in here to complain about CiG doing -anything-) is that anyone who's going to actually give a shit already agree'd with you ages ago and anyone that actually likes CiG is going to never agree with you. Anyone that agree's with derek has already done so and anyone that doesn't never will so why is it that anyone feels the need to write these persuasive pieces that are clearly going to have zero effect on anyone? At this point its basically shitposting because thats the only effect it has on this thread, there is no discussion because its gotten past the point that anyone gives a shit and now its just downright annoying to read. Can we just talk about the fucking game instead of corporate semantics and derek copypastes? And on that note my god the HuD for the xeno ships is so cool, I was kind of hoping that the "pirate" ships had some sort of a rough feel to them like the sythe's one but I suppose it makes sense not to.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50523979]I don't care much for the office door (it's kind of shitty that customer service lied to somebody claiming it was built with a garage door opener and 300 bucks when it's actually professionally made and $20000, but whatever). But the ToS stuff isn't trivial, at all. You may not like to talk about it because Derek Smart made a big deal about it, but it isn't just something you should shrug off. I don't care if elixwhitetail or whoever in this thread doesn't want a refund, I honestly don't care about your money, I do think that somebody with $2000 pledged acts differently than somebody with only $50 pledged and it's easy to tell each other apart, but that's not the point of contention. The problem with the ToS is not that [I]they[/I] can't get a refund using it, the problem is that they're deliberately making it harder for [I]anyone[/I] to get a refund, and as somebody with an interest in consumer rights, it's something that I believe must be brought to light. Seriously, compare the ToS with the one of other games and you'll see that the wording CIG uses stands out. This isn't subjective, speculative talk at all, it got changed as a [I]direct[/I] response to Derek Smart's complaints in fact, removing an arbitration clause that meant you waived your right to a jury trial, the results of which are visible in the current ToS, so there are tangible results coming from these discussions. The current ToS attempts to claim that you are making a "pledge" to purchase "virtual goods" which is only refundable within 14 days, whether you can use whatever you pledged for or not, which is absolutely wrong and I'm fairly sure is illegal. The particular problem with this change is that previously it spoke of pledges being refundable if the pledge items if they were not delivered within 18 months, now RIS/CIG is under no obligation of refunding you [I]ever[/I], so long as they show evidence that they're still working on the game. Complaints about ToS aren't exclusive to Star Citizen drama either, there was a HUGE shitstorm caused by Steam's ToS and EULA. I hate that I can't talk about it because Derek Smart is involved in some form.[/QUOTE] Someone even shoed what's changed with the new ToS, this is the old ToS with the red text showing what's added with the new one:. [url]http://imgur.com/a/Ov1Tt[/url] so them being called pledges with "pledge cost" and "game cost" has been there for at least a year, and unless i've missed it, under the refund section there is nothing that says pledges were refundable within 14 days, and the part about pledges being non-refundable was also there previously as well. The previous ToS said refunds were only possible if you don't receive part of your pledge and/or the game, and you'd only get back the part of your pledge that hadn't been used yet (so if you got your ship, you wouldn't get the "pledge cost" portion back as that had been used to provide what it was for) There was no time limit on this at all. There was no indication of when you'd be actually able to get a refund, as the only words it used were "failed to deliver the relevant package" with no indication of when exactly this had to have happened by, as most things do not have a set date. So for example, players still don't have their Idris...does that mean CiG have failed to deliver that despite no estimated date ever being given? Of course not, it's still being worked on. Now the changes to the ToS make it clear that you can only get a refund if they've stopped working on something and you still haven't got it.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/4YCwtxD.png[/img] The head of marketing is at E3, surprise announcement??

[QUOTE=link lover;50525688]The head of marketing is at E3, surprise announcement??[/QUOTE] Probably not. Not everyone who goes to E3 is there to announce something.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50525756]Uhh, where exactly is the flaw in my reasoning? He promised you a product in a year, 3 years in, he can't deliver that promise. That's not a good faith effort, that's flat out fraudulent, I don't care how flashy his pizza place trailers may be. If the project is still going 3 years in despite his estimates it means he lied to you into thinking your investment was more critical than what it actually ended up being, because if he's still operating, it means he found money from some other source. How is it good faith to miss your original delivery date by 2 years? I think that, because you see $2000 as being a small investment, you're not seeing the problem here. But you could be in for like, $100000, in which case, yeah, you would want your money back, and yeah, you would want Tony to declare bankruptcy because he cannot fulfill his debt to you, because no, it isn't okay for commercial promises to go unfulfilled, I don't care what you call your investment scheme like. You're the one who's taking a risk here, Tony is using your money, not his, it makes no sense you should be punished for his poor project management, and it makes no sense to give him money at all if it's such a high risk investment.[/QUOTE] So don't give Tony your investment, there are already 1,394,866 other investors and Tony says he has the money he needs to complete his pizza place, which will be even better now than when he first pitched the idea to you, because all of his investors gave way more money than he had first envisioned. More money for Tony meant that he could make a ton of improvements to his plans. All of these improvements means that the construction will take longer, but he has assured every investor that we will get there eventually. In the end, you lose nothing by other people investing in Tony, you might get a new, awesome pizza place, but you also might not - no one has seen the future after all. All of his other investors did what they wanted with their money, and they accept that they will never get said money back, but they are happy to be a part of making the new pizza place possible.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50526638]What sort of twisted form of investment involves giving somebody money with no guarantee you'll get anything back? It isn't a gift, I didn't donate Tony anything, I gave him money for him to complete his goals, and without my money Tony wouldn't be able to do shit, so why am I in the wrong in this situation?[/QUOTE] In what world do you live in that investments are ever guaranteed a risk-free return?

-snip-

The only reason I don't care about the ToS change is because I'm surprised it took them this long. I don't understand how development on an ongoing project can work when you are using funds to pay artists and programmers then that person waits a year or two and decides they want their money back. The vast majority of games that you pay for in development don't have refund policies for this reason, and it's understandable why.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50526719]In the world where purchases are not investments and aren't interchangeable terms. I bought a ship, I want a ship, I didn't get a ship in the promised time, I want my money back.[/QUOTE] Never put a cent into Early Access or crowdfunding, then. Ever. And guess who you can blame for refunds being locked down; CIG CS was generally easy about issuing refunds if someone had lost faith in the project or had an undesirable financial situation. Then [I]someone[/I] tried to cause a run on the bank with a refund cascade and actively promoted a campaign to get people to refund in bad faith, and CS responded by doing away with their discretionary refund policy because it was being abused. How much have you backed, Big Bang? Come on then. How invested are you? You seem to care a lot.

Stop being so passive-agressive with eachother, this is honestly almost childish now. CIG did to TOS what should have been done in the first place. Early access doesn't quarantee you anything. You use your money in hopes of making project succeed and if it does you will get to be part of it in some form. Derek is sometimes raising some valid points, but does so in worst possible way often acting on impulse and being misinformed or simply stupid. Now then. I tried the 2.4 alpha recently and it's actually pretty cool already, but my gpu is quite shit (gtx660ti) so i get terrible fps. Even though it's somewhat playable i get frequent crashes/freezes especially when things are getting interesting. I got myself a summer job for once, so maybe i will save up and buy a gtx 1070 later.

-snip-

[URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/spectrum-dispatch/15381-DISCOVERED"]This week's lore post is the diaries of Kellar Lynch around the time of Kellar's Run and the discovery of the Tevarin.[/URL] All these Tevarin-related historical loreposts tells me the writers are firming up the Tevarin species and culture, starting by nailing down their history. Just a bit worried that it's taken them this long, but given that one of the stretch goals was developing alien languages, and language and culture are intertwined, I suppose it makes sense that they would do it in this order. Apparently the Banu aren't needed for Squadron 42 part 1, at least, so that's one less thing that can hold the release back.