|
Lazrin posted:i do get the sense that there were heady early days in the project where it looked like they could never run out of money, and now they're at a point where they see that they could. there were trying to build a dream studio to attract the best talent and there was excess and few if any spending constraints. backers can only hope the brakes came on early enough to stop from hitting the proverbial wall. And right there is the biggest problem. Not only is he losing experienced devs he is replacing them with ex qa guys from various studios. He can't get the guys he needs because devs talk. They talk in person and on TCE and coming out with outrageous stuff like 'I guess only rockstar can come close to what I'm doing ' immediately makes anyone at rockstar or activision or blizzard think WTF! Add that to the guys who have now migrated back into new companies after leaving CIG and all the tales they have to tell.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
tooterfish posted:Fixed that for you. ... you're alright.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
EightAce posted:[quote="Lazrin" post="462465686"] Thanks for the upate dev ghost. No mention of Star Marine though. But even Derek seems to think Star Marine may actually be in the plans now for realz. What say you? If true, any idea how advanced its develpment may be? 2.6?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
EightAce  Marching Powder posted:is it a scam to say you'll release something of worth that you've already sold in 5 months when everyone in the building knows for a fact it that this is inaccurate and suspects a further 3 years when you're already 1.5 years behind your last estimate 5 years ago? Seriousanswer: In the US court system, you would probably get away with that if your lawyer framed it as unwarranted optimism rather than knowing deception. Chris taking the stand and fumfering in his usual way would just reinforce that. Can't speak for the other countries where CIG/RSI has corporate presences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
For the record I'm not even going into all the personal stuff about some of the top end execs that I have seen with my own eyes. That stuff derails the argument and takes it away from discourse into shooting fish in a barrel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Jon Do posted:
im an army power ranger and green beret
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
EightAce posted:For the record I'm not even going into all the personal stuff about some of the top end execs that I have seen with my own eyes. That stuff derails the argument and takes it away from discourse into shooting fish in a barrel. we are fish and need to be fed please feed us
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
EightAce posted:For the record I'm not even going into all the personal stuff about some of the top end execs that I have seen with my own eyes. That stuff derails the argument and takes it away from discourse into shooting fish in a barrel. please do this
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:44
|
|
EightAce posted:For the record I'm not even going into all the personal stuff about some of the top end execs that I have seen with my own eyes. That stuff derails the argument and takes it away from discourse into shooting fish in a barrel. that's not fair we feed off of gossip
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
EightAce posted:Lazrin. I'm being as honest as I can be with you here. i get the sense you are, and i hope you are. but money is not a thing for me... i just back the things i'd like to see one day. it's a risk in the strict sense of the word, but it doesn't impact me financially in any meaningful way. i've stated before i'm in at about $1,200 i'm not saying that's true for every backer of course, but i would hope those in it for $500, $1000, $10000 are of the mindset that they wanted to help get the game made, not that their contribution was "worth" that much. i also think that tier of backer understood the risks. and no, of course the game is not at the stage any of us would have liked by now, and roberts will say that himself. but let's not get into the realities of comparative game development timelines, etc. if star citizen was publicly announced today for the first time, showing in it's current state, that's what a game with another 3-4 years of development looks like. but everyone has been seeing it since day 1 *with* an estimated release date has magnified the negative. the community was given a set of unrealistic expectations by cig and have been watching the sausage get made since day 1. both of those things don't happen in traditional triple-a development. that is a box cig painted for themselves and have mismanaged since.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
boviscopophobic posted:The answer is that CIG should be honest about the state of the project to both current backers and prospective customers. If the 2019 release date for SQ42 is real, then that needs to be publicized so that people can make an informed decision with their money. To do anything else is to take money under false pretenses. I'm comfortable calling that scam tactics, regardless of any equivocation over the mens rea of CIG management. This is the conculsion I've come to over the last few weeks. I've had to accept that there are backers out there who believe in the project and want to support it, they want it to happen. That's a fact. On the other hand there is all this information spilling out that there are deep problems with the project. CIG need to be honest about where the project is at with their backers. Lazrin is right about one thing in particular - a publisher would have pulled the plug on this by now. The backers simply do not have the information to even make that decision, it could well be that they'd decide to continue funding regardless. But they don't have the information on where the project is at, what the problems are, and what kind of timescales are needed because CIG won't give it to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
EightAce posted:For the record I'm not even going into all the personal stuff about some of the top end execs that I have seen with my own eyes. That stuff derails the argument and takes it away from discourse into shooting fish in a barrel. Don't tease me like this
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:please do this Sorry but this isn't the right place. Especially when they are doing what they are doing right now. Also I'm not trying to ' save a shitizen' or anything. Like I say I'm out and I can at least let people like Lazrin know the score on a purely factual level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
boviscopophobic posted:The answer is that CIG should be honest about the state of the project to both current backers and prospective customers. If the 2019 release date for SQ42 is real, then that needs to be publicized so that people can make an informed decision with their money. agree 100% with this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
EightAce posted:Sorry but this isn't the right place. Especially when they are doing what they are doing right now. well if you let me know where the right place is i'll be there because that sounds great
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:49
|
|
Lazrin posted:agree 100% with this.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Lazrin posted:
This is where you figured out it is indeed a scam. They're selling you things to get money to pay for the things they sold you before. If they make enough money to finish the project and deliver on all the promises, good on them. A bunch of people just paid thousands for a video game. Whatever. We'll see if they can make it until 2019. If they don't, then every dollar the accepted between now and when they go bust is fraudulent. They were selling things that they could not produce, all while smiling and saying that everything was right on schedule. If I go to McDonalds and give them five bucks, they give me a cheeseburger. I know they have the capacity to do this. If I go to a different place and give them five bucks and they make me wait while they run across the street to buy buns to complete the burger, I might be annoyed at the wait, but I'll eat. If I go to CIGburger and give them five bucks, they make me wait because they need the money from the next guy to buy the meat, and the guy after that to buy the cheese, and the guy after that for pickles, etc.... So if the money dries up before they get enough for all the ingredients, then nobody gets anything. They sold everyone a burger in bad faith. It's a scamburger. (and before you say it, I didn't "pledge" for a for a ship. It was a sale. We give them money, they say they'll deliver a ship. End of story.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
MedicineHut posted:Thanks for the upate dev ghost. Also curious about this. next to procedural planets that german article causing backers to think that Star Marine is in the game and ready to go was the second biggest point they were flipping out about. It's even getting confusing to me and I pay way too much attention to this poo poo. It was Weeks not months away Then delayed indefinitely Then Chris stated the mechanics were in the PU and it was a done issue Now it's back? The whole time backers saying it was never cancelled in the first place just "delayed indefinitely" What the gently caress is even going on with it eightace?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
EightAce posted:Sorry but this isn't the right place. Especially when they are doing what they are doing right now. Is it correct to say that there are fundamental technical issues with the project that may never be resolved, regardless of time or talent?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Lazrin posted:i get the sense you are, and i hope you are. OK so next question is. Assuming you view this as support/ pledge money. How long would you give CIG before your good faith runs out. I won't say Chris personally because the sheer amount of nonsense he talks must have hit home with the most fervent cultist by now. I mean CIG as a company. You have seen what is out there and what is coming around the corner, now compare with hinted at revised possibilities from CIG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Lazrin posted:
Please stop saying poo poo like this It's not anywhere near true and you're twisting poo poo to fit your own narrative
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Lazrin posted:i guess the point of contention there becomes, who believes he should be granted more money (by selling more ships) to fix the mistakes... and who believes he should be hung out to dry, flushing the project completely down the toilet? Now, that sounds really sensible. They make mistakes, they get additional funding, they fix those mistakes - it makes sense. Unfortunately, when you look at the detail of the situation and the specific mistakes that have been (and are being) made, it gets a bit messy. For example, some mistakes being made are things like the focus on high fidelity animations that serve only to frustrate players. That's a pretty simple fix, you strip those out and go for a more functional and standard interaction system. Other mistakes are things like trying to design a vast and complex system of interdependent professions without any idea about how they will interact with each other, how they will be balanced and what the incentive will be to ensure players actually fill these roles rather than more obviously exciting ones such as "space pilot". The fix there is also pretty straight forward, you drop professions that aren't going to be a high quality experience and you divert resources from assets dedicated to those professions to core gameplay. The list goes on, but it's all similar. Chris promised procedurally generated wildlife on vast procedurally generated planets. This is impractical and detracts from the game, and the solution is just like all the others, you drop the feature. They have huge problems combining high player counts (thousands of players in multiple physics grids involved in a space battle) and the solution, again, is to scale back and focus on smaller, higher quality encounters. And on and on it goes. Cargo stacking is a tedious and impractical mechanic, so you drop it. In game player run organisations being in charge of policing game mechanics from abuse is one of the worst ideas in video games history, so you drop it in favour of solid, balanced mechanics that are fair to everyone. You go on and on through all the mistakes and poorly allocated resources and you fix them all. You cut features, you cut ships, you focus on core gameplay and distil it down into something that's as fun and as high quality as you can make it. You do all of that, then you turn to the people who funded you and give them a decent game. And they say "but I paid $2000 for a ship that grows crops on it and you've dropped it from the game", "I paid $5000 because you promised me I'd be able to roleplay as a space bartender, but that's not a thing" and "I paid $10,000 because you told me I could hunt procedurally generated wildlife across a vast, beautiful planet in order to craft ornaments to hang on the wall of my space strip club and now I feel betrayed". Do you understand the problem with this? If you're right, and they're using this funding to fix their mistakes and turn this game into a high quality and fun product, then they are misleading their backers plain and simple. That's the irony. If they are doing what you say they're doing, they can't admit it or people will stop giving them money. Their only course is to lie and pretend that all those features will eventually come to pass, even though they're of such insane scope that they'd never be feasible even with a decade of development. That is the dishonesty that I detest. I don't think they're morons, I think they're cutting features like an intelligent and sensible person would do, but they're lying about it in order to continue funding the game. That's wrong, no two ways about it. Either that, or they're completely incompetent and are running the project into the ground and nothing decent will ever be released.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:I didn't. I just cannot speak of it. Lazrin posted:i came here hoping that the intelligence of the members (there is no question there are smart people here) would peak a bit higher than the troll noise. quote:i'm not here to defend star citizen. quote:In these forums, they will be damned for doing either. that's irrational. thats what i'm here to combat. quote:so, i hope you can see my position Lazrin posted:what are scam tactics? the only way it can be a scam if there's a plan to never release it. The proof of this is… oh… everything they've promised so far. The scam tactic of asking for more and more money while at the same time saying that they have no need of it while at the same time not being able to deliver anything with the money they've gotten but showing off some spectacularly poor spending practices. Oh, and why is it that you can't answer any questions — only ask them in bad faith? Why do you refuse to communicate with the people around you? Why do you not want to actually discuss and debate the topic and instead just hurl insults at people for no sane or sensible reason? Why do you refuse to accept the input of people who are far more qualified and experienced to discuss the matter than you are? Tippis fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jul 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Barn Folk posted:This is where you figured out it is indeed a scam. They're selling you things to get money to pay for the things they sold you before. If they make enough money to finish the project and deliver on all the promises, good on them. A bunch of people just paid thousands for a video game. Whatever. We'll see if they can make it until 2019. Star Citizen: The Scammiest of Burgers
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:55
|
|
Welcome to the|
Thank you for conceding that cig are in the wrong here lazrin i didn't expect that from you, you agree with the fundamental point we are all making here, they took the money, broke promises and deadlines, then without informing the backers on the state of the project rescinded through the TOS the capacity of backers to get financial accountability. They need to come clean and give backers the real state of the game. Finally we can stop arguing and laugh at chris roberts
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
EightAce tell us some funny anecdotes from CIG this thread feeds off that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Indefinite scope creep means that the game will never be finished. By definition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Is it correct to say that there are fundamental technical issues with the project that may never be resolved, regardless of time or talent? Yes. Cry3 was the wrong engine. All the ships are just skinned characters. That's why they don't feel right. At some point the code branched to make the ships work correctly. So you had two teams working on what was effectively different code. One on fps one on ship combat. When they attempted to integrate one back into the other guess what happened. You can see it every time a ship goes mental and spins off through the world or a character mesh snaps into a bind pose but the locator is in a different world space. At this stage this is a collosal screw up and they just don't know how to fix it properly EightAce fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jul 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:EightAce tell us some funny anecdotes from CIG this thread feeds off that stuff. yes, no need to name names or anything...
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
EightAce posted:Yes. Cry3 was the wrong engine. All the ships are just skinned characters. That's why they don't feel right. At some point the code branched to make the ships work correctly. So you had two teams working on what was effectively different code. One on fps one on ship combat. Thanks. This is the answer I wanted when I got involved in this whole thing in the first place. This is why I said to Lazrin that it's not a matter of time, it's a matter of feasibility - this is the only thing that matters imo. Not WHEN but IF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Lazrin posted:for s42 stuff, i don't think anyone will bat an eye if it's delayed.... but that also makes it basically every other triple-A single player game in recent memory. broken. delayed. so is it better to ship as is? or is it better to work on it until its not poo poo? If? It IS delayed. From its initial release in 2014 - before funding-scope increase - then 2015 (which the website still claims), then 2016 as per last year's trailer (with no apology for Sq42's further delay), now 2017... From The Pledge: "There may be delays and there may be changes; we recognize that such things are inevitable and would be lying to you if we claimed otherwise. But when this happens, we will treat you with the respect you deserve rather than spending your money on public relations. When we need to change a mechanic or alter something you believe should be in the game, we will tell you exactly why."
For a laugh, check out INN's Release Plans (Sep 2015): quote:SO, WHAT WILL WE GET BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Nation posted:Thank you for conceding that cig are in the wrong here lazrin i didn't expect that from you, you agree with the fundamental point we are all making here, they took the money, broke promises and deadlines, then without informing the backers on the state of the project rescinded through the TOS the capacity of backers to get financial accountability. They need to come clean and give backers the real state of the game. I'm honestly impressed at how long devghost has been trying to get Lazrin to stop poo poo-talking for a second and that it actually worked
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Fat Shat Sings posted:Also curious about this. next to procedural planets that german article causing backers to think that Star Marine is in the game and ready to go was the second biggest point they were flipping out about. Aye, and to top it up, the Monthly report (granted from 8th July) does not even mention it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Tippis posted:
This times a thousand. This is why star citizen is now a scam They will gladly put poo poo on sale and take your money, but refuse to give release dates In what world is that OK? Would you be fine if you paid to have a house built and the contractor told you they can't say when it please he done, but it'll be ready when it's ready.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Lazrin posted:i guess the point of contention there becomes, who believes he should be granted more money (by selling more ships) to fix the mistakes... and who believes he should be hung out to dry, flushing the project completely down the toilet? Money cannot solve all problems. Money cannot solve continued, unrepentant mismanagement or their Crytek problems or unrealistic expectations that will never be met. Why do you think he can fix these mistakes with more money? Why is there not a middle point between "hung out to dry" (which implies fault on the part of the backers, not the man who made all the mistakes in the first place, by the way) and "give him all the money"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
EightAce posted:Yes. Cry3 was the wrong engine. All the ships are just skinned characters. That's why they don't feel right. At some point the code branched to make the ships work correctly. So you had two teams working on what was effectively different code. One on fps one on ship combat. Please tell us about the things you have seen. I get you want to have reasonable discourse but this is absolutely the tight time and place to talk about the insanely bad upper management being dickheads
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
I need to hear the Texas poo poo story
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
This game is totally coming out. It's going to be great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Turd Burglar posted:This times a thousand. This is why star citizen is now a scam Yeah it becomes scam territory when they know they have an unfixably poo poo gamee but keep driving for more cash while misleading people about the state of affairs
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
EightAce posted:Yes. Cry3 was the wrong engine. All the ships are just skinned characters. That's why they don't feel right. At some point the code branched to make the ships work correctly. So you had two teams working on what was effectively different code. One on fps one on ship combat. Would the Cry devs agree with this? Can you say anything about the Cry devs? You can ignore these questions if you can't go there
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:08
|
|