Gejnor posted:

I can't help but think on the day when, if this really does go court, the judge & jury hears about the pricing involved with buying spaceships.

Unless they have been involved in this particular scene it should come as a shock, and not a positive one. I get that i am biased here and all against this... thing.. but honestly i cannot see normal people and functionaries of the court react in any other way than with utter disbelief, not to mention a significant amount of suspicion.

If i was that Judge (or in the jury) and i heard a loving videogame asset costs 3000 $ and worse that the asset does not even exist after years of development i would instantly start favouring Crytek and their claims, but again that may just be me.

I get that Citizens think this is normal, but it really isn't, nobody outside of your little bubble thinks this is even close to normal spending behaviour and the more people find out about this stuff, the more revolted they will become.

boviscopophobic posted:

Depends how much of a distinction you draw between the project itself versus the principals behind the project, but Ortwin allegedly not revealing his conflict of interest in the waiver explaining that he foresaw no potential for conflict of interest, is potentially a big deal for Ortwin.

Scruffpuff posted:

But see, isn't that the whole point? It's the greatest paradox of Star Citizen - a game that isn't, made by a game development company that isn't, run by a game developer who isn't. The chart, if looked at by a casual gamer who has never heard of the game, would make an educated decision: say, in this case, he buys a cheap ship figuring he can pew pew around a while waiting for the game to be worked on.

But what exact aspect of this chart would prepare him for the fact that nothing works??? Surely a casual gamer might expect some basic flight mechanics like X-Wing, Elite, Flight Simulator, or any number of titles from literally decades ago. Then he logs in and sees - this? The game is not a game - there is nothing here - even stripped to it's most basic elements it's still a complete sham and fraud. You're janking around a model viewer and hitting buttons which may or may not draw lasers that may or may not crash the server.

That's the hardest thing to explain about this game to the uninitiated - even the parts that are there aren't there. It's smoke and mirrors where even the smoke and mirrors are fake.

no_recall posted:

So the argument is: Star Citizen is better because SpageLegs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWsEAh5M7GQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T280kJwUwc&t=62s

Spatial posted:

Do the ships really have instant acceleration in SC? I'm never sure how seriously to take it when you guys are talking about noclipping but it looks goddamn awful there.

XK posted:

It says on the web page this ship is $2,500, what's the conversion rate in real money?

What?

G0RF posted:

Guard Frequency #197: (9:00) “(Ortwin’s two-sided dealings) not to the level of criminal, but almost to the level of fraud...”

Their brief, semi-speculative take on the Crytek/CIG drama is not likely to win the hearts and minds of the Montoyas out there. Somebody needs to give GF the memo that after CIG’s reply, Crytek became Cry-Rekt.

Terebus posted:

So Derek teased a bigger ELE on the same day as the Skadden response. Is ot safe to say that nothing came of that?

boviscopophobic posted:

Seeing as the Guard Frequency guy was the only one prescient enough (or with enough inside sources? ) to call the Ortwin thing ahead of time, I'm curious if they will address Skadden's response in the next episode, which is due tomorrow.

XK posted:

I don't understand how anyone doesn't have the feels that Ortwin is shady as gently caress.

thatguy posted:

Calling it is a two-part process. First, you call it.

IncredibleIgloo posted:

Ok, I call it! Now what?

Experimental Skin posted:

Now you hedge.

Zaphod42 posted:

Somebody should mock up what an honest Star Citizen kickstarter would look like

Please give us 141 million dollars so we can record videos of Mark Hamill, Gillian Anderson and Gary Oldman in blue pajamas, and also produce a bunch of high quality spaceship jpgs.

IncredibleIgloo posted:

In defense of Clifford, he seems to keep almost all of his comments positive. Even the comments in regards to SC's detractors or issues are framed in a positive way.

Dementropy posted:

Dementropy posted:

XK posted:

Why would you make people have insurance for vehicles in a game?

XK posted:

Why would you make people have insurance for vehicles in a game?

Scruffpuff posted:

As much as I love your charts, I've always had a slight issue with this one for two technicalities.

1) The description of "flyable" for a ship. What that basically equates to is: can you move the model around the map. The flight model is still not technically functional. I know there is some debate, but take a look at the .gif a few pages back with the ship jittering around nose-down on the planet. Take a look at literally any video of SC ships in action. Play the game. The ships - none of them - are attached to a space game flight model. There is no mass, inertia, thrust, or anything that gives each ship heft and a unique feel. So to say the ship is "flyable" is making the game look much farther along than it really is. In a sense, none of the ships are flyable until they put in a flight model.

If the "flight model" in the game now is what they're keeping, then loving - no amount of "tweaking" will fix it. This game is a model viewer at best.

2) Just an extension of #1 - the chart farthest to the right mentions game mechanics, and space combat is complete. Without a flight model, is it really space combat?

So I think your chart is actually exceptionally generous and doesn't actually reflect the true state of CIG's progress, which is essentially none.

boviscopophobic posted:

Some community elements were not happy...



Seeing as the Guard Frequency guy was the only one prescient enough (or with enough inside sources? ) to call the Ortwin thing ahead of time, I'm curious if they will address Skadden's response in the next episode, which is due tomorrow.

Tippis posted:

EVE answer: as a mechanism to control and maintain balance of the prices of fundamental manufacturing goods, thereby loosely determining the base value of the in-game currency.





Not a single word in that sentence would make even the slightest bit of sense to the geniuses at CIG.

XK posted:

I'm convinced EVE is a spergy board game that somebody made an interactive CGI version of.

Spatial posted:

Do the ships really have instant acceleration in SC? I'm never sure how seriously to take it when you guys are talking about noclipping but it looks goddamn awful there.

Terebus posted:

That is pretty big news but like you said it's pretty tangential to CIG. Ortwin being hosed in this situation too is pretty good tho.