Return to “Games”

Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1726
I was actually impressed with Derek's post. (I can't believe I just said that)

He's a known jerk and he admits that and even says people will dismiss his points just because he's the one making them. I've found that even the biggest jerks can make valid points on occasion so summarily dismiss everything they say at your own risk.

Many of his points are him saying what he thinks may be happening and then to NOT just take him at his word but someone should be looking into it and asking the tough questions. I agree with him, he is a jerk, he does make points that may or may not be true but have some basis in reality and I'm not just going to assume he's 100% right but I'm glad SOMEONE is asking those questions and I'd like to see some answers myself.

His post seems to be just as much a condemnation of the media's Kool-Aid drinking coverage of the game as it is with the game itself.

For Derek I found this to be a pretty tame post all in all considering his reputation and nowhere near as caustic as that horrible hatchet job of an interview done by Rock Paper Shotgun a while back about Godus.

I do think it looks bad for RSI to refund his pledge for something he said ON HIS OWN BLOG. Now they make him look right and them look fishy by giving some B.S. explanation about him promoting his own game... maybe he was... ON HIS OWN BLOG. So now you can't promote your own game on your own blog if you back a game in the same general genre?!?
More likely he's got some ounce of truth in what he's saying (not saying it's all correct) and by refunding his money he no longer has standing to pursue a lawsuit against them.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1727
Poet1960 wrote:Some of the points he brings up are valid. Such as, the original goal was what? $500K? He got that and much more. So let's see, to create the game he promised, he said that $500k was enough to do what he promised.
Actually, $500 was the Kickstarter goal. The real goal was around 2000000 dollars + investors = close to $4000000 if I remember it right.

But that doesn't affects your argument, so... :D
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1728
This is the problem here:
A bit of history. Did you know that, at one time, RSI, and CryTek, the owners of the CryEngine3, were “partners” of sorts in the launch of this game? CryTek created that first mind-boggling trailer, that launched the Kickstarter project. As the investigative reporting goes, at some point, over a year or so ago, there was apparently a falling out between them and CryTek. Sources tell me that it all came to a head when RSI went and setup an office in the vicinity, then the execs down there, proceeded to poach CryTek engineers. They succeeded in getting a few; while some others didn’t make the move.

Now, you may be wondering why they’d want to do that. It’s simple. When you license an engine, and then you try to build a game with that engine, and which goes beyond the increased scope of the engine’s capabilities, the only way that you’re going to overcome that, is to get either the architects, or people who know the engine. Usually, in our business, the proper way to do it, is to get a support (on or off site) contract, and have the architects help you work with their technology. For example, I license the Havok Vision Engine for my game. If we ran into problems, or wanted to implement a feature that we couldn’t do, I would have a dialog with the Havok CEO, and get on a support contract with one of their engineers. That’s how it works..
As an investigator myself...I don't believe in coincidences. We all know CR worked closely with Crytek to create the 'tech demo' and the modified engine etc for the game, which they were happy to do because its CR and because it promotes the engine.

We all know they started getting Crytek employees.

Now they are having problems with technology and engineering and integration and the code base etc....this may just tie in with the fall out. Crytek is no longer helping or providing expertise because of the fall out, hence all the technical difficulties and delays. And really who else would be capable to continue working on a project this technical save for the original talent who did the engine it is built on.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1729
I finished reading both articles, and now I'm not sure what to think of it. It seems like a twisted parody and I find it difficult to take it seriously. People are crazy.

- I haven't seen any evidence that Star Citizen is falling apart. At all.
- Bakers are not Cris Robert's bosses. (He has a responsibility, of course, but nothing else.)
- If I had a company I would put my family or friends there without any problem. It's my company. I would do whatever I want.
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1730
Etsu wrote: - I haven't seen any evidence that Star Citizen is falling apart. At all.
based on which data?
the official statements?

of course they wont say that they have serious problems if they have some
they will likely continue to spread an "everything is fine" mood as long as its possible, regardless of the true state of the project.
Etsu wrote: - If I had a company I would put my family or friends there without any problem. It's my company. I would do whatever I want.
if its just his own company built with his own capital he should do what he wants.

but as he has nine hundred thousand people who gave him money in advance for the awesome game he promised
a promise where he is at least 2 years late to fulfil
and he is putting people his family in positions they are not qualified for.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1731
Cornflakes_91 wrote:based on which data?
the official statements?
That's the point: I haven't seen any data at all. What I have seen is fatalistic people that could be right only by accident. That doesn't mean that they are not right, but I find no reason to believe so just yet. For what I can tell the game is progressing just fine and as expected, if slowly. (Which is as expected by the way. Two years development easily means five years of real time, in the same way that it took more than a year to Kubrick to complete his six months of filming for his last movie. It's not fun but it happens and it's to be expected.)
Cornflakes_91 wrote:if its just his own company built with his own capital he should do what he wants.

but as he has nine hundred thousand people who gave him money in advance for the awesome game he promised
a promise where he is at least 2 years late to fulfil
and he is putting people his family in positions they are not qualified for.
Why they are not qualified? It's still his company and his money, regardless of where the money comes from. I gave him 40 dollars. I'm not his boss. (My 40 dollars are nothing on those 85 millions.)

People can make questions and everything, but they almost saying that Chris Robets killed Kennedy. I have read too much exaggeration for no real reason except for drama sake. I still not convinced. All this sounds too unnecessary, and just because a module was delayed a few weeks and some people leaved the company.
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1732
Etsu wrote: Why they are not qualified?
"hey! be the head of this many-million dollar project in a branche where you have zero experience in!"
:problem:
Etsu wrote:It's still his company and his money, regardless of where the money comes from. I gave him 40 dollars. I'm not his boss.
you are not his boss, yes, but he cannot spend the money on messing around with his family.
he explicitly sold additions to a game that doesnt exist, and doesnt seem to deliver any time soon, there is no time or money for messing around.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1735
Cornflakes_91 wrote:I wonder why you always have to put note on that online aspect.
Because of the irreversible damage the failure (I hope it does not fail) of SC could cause to all the players, we in one way of another use the online method to stay connected. Also the damage that would create towards kickstartes and crowfunded games.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1736
Kambalo wrote: Because of the irreversible damage the failure of SC could cause to all the players, we in one way of another use the online method to stay connected.
i dont see any connection between those two part-sentences.

To me it seems like you were saying something analogous to:
"This company, which uses cars, failure will hurt all the civilised world because we all use cars"

:think:
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1737
Etsu wrote: - I haven't seen any evidence that Star Citizen is falling apart. At all.
The high level departures are real.
The FPS "indefinite delay" of the FPS module is real.
The kickstarter funded in 2012 with an estimated delivery of 2014 still doesn't have anything similar to the actual kickstarter pledged game. A ship viewer/garage was not something we backed nor was Arena Combat or even the FPS module.

I agree none of that is PROOF Star Citizen is falling apart but I don't see how you can say there is no evidence, at all.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1738
Some of this is starting to sound very eerily reminiscent of when Duke Nukem Forever was still in development. Heavy engine modification leading to switching engines before finally getting stuck in development hell.

If they announce an engine switch at any point, maybe to Unreal... :(
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#1740
Yup, I didn't think I'd go into a Derek Smart post coming out illuminated, but as always, it's important to look at what's being said, not who's saying it.

It looks soooo fishy that RSI refunded his pledge pretty much straight away. To me (and my opinion, as Flat so eloquently puts it, is worth precisely diddly squat), it looks like they wanted to preclude any basis for a lawsuit on his part. It might give them some moral high ground too: if he keeps talking about SC, then RSI may feel justified to point out that he has a vested interest in condemning SC, namely his own game. Since his pledge has been refunded, he no longer has any stake in SC.

If this is true, then it's a very disingenuous move by RSI, and makes me consider withdrawing my pledge as well. I'm sure as a founding backer I have a good argument for getting my money back.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron