|
Quavers posted:The gradual walking back of promised features and gameplay continues: That sounds like the worst way to do it in existence. That is awful, awful, awful.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
You know Chris is talking poo poo about doing the male models first when you look at the mocap vids from 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD074Yemlpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUUlU6RvrQE When both male and female were mocapped at the same time. Edit: You know, when development didn't 'start' yet. happyhippy fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jan 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
Quavers posted:The gradual walking back of promised features and gameplay continues: Wow! This is extremely major. Ruined the game, right here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
I'm going to put 18 billion dollars on them changing their tune the second the game is capable of handling anything other than everything vanishing the second people log out. Right about the time Kayak takes the stand to testify.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
Quavers posted:The gradual walking back of promised features and gameplay continues:
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Hahahahahahaha That one post wrecks countless space dreams. I expect that admission to be explained away shortly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
So much for persistence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:Oh poo poo you know your Mata from your Nui. Metru-Nui  and 5,000 Vahki were made in total, most were destroyed when Makuta Teridax sucked up the power grid, and the rest were torn apart when the Visorak invaded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
if the game is poo poo you must acquit
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
I'm not going to go through CIG's latest response as in-depthly as I did Crytek's amendment, because it's such a mess to read it's painful. I feel badly for anyone who has to, but, at least they're getting paid well. Stuff like the donut shop citation. Yeah, I think a commercial retail space rental agreement, where the landlord has to do construction upgrades, has different realities from a software contract. I just want to drop in on this part, though: quote:Crytek refuses to acknowledge clear contract language that the collective definition of “Game” is a “game” (Star Citizen) and a “related game” (Squadron 42). Clearly, the definition of "Game", singular, is actually two games. It's clear language for a singular noun to be plural. Collective definition. Wooo
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:This is a bit nobody's excerpted yet, and I love it because it's such badly written English, and it's the first paragraph of the new document. You know, the one you want to make sure sets a good tone for the rest. I know that legalese often departs from standard usage, but I'm pretty sure any decent lawyer working in the US would be embarrassed to file a document which starts with such a confused, badly written sentence, and continues with the awful phrase "crams upon CIG a mandatory duty". Actually I know nothing about law so I can't speak to that but one of my only skills is composition/speech type things. Some things jump out at me reading the document. This is outside of the arguments themselves and the literal nonsense being put forth by Ortwin but is related to what you are saying. Remember we are dealing with the most formal setting of writing there is. Expensive proceedings involving complex subjects where the composition represents the person submitting them. "Legalese" is a common term for a reason. On a pure structural level CIG's response has things like quote:Crytek’s construction of the term “exclusively” leads to absurdities.... quote:....but rather crams upon CIG a mandatory duty.... quote:....and every common sense notion of exclusive licensing, says otherwise. quote:It tries to save its single defective theory..... quote:The opposition rambles..... quote:...by arguing phantom allegations, by proffering absurd interpretations... quote:...seeking remedies that are palpably improper... quote:....both efforts at pleading in this case have been an unmanageable, incoherent mess unworthy of proceeding... quote:The Court should straighten that mess.... quote:Crytek cosmetically amended its initial pleading by peppering the FAC with the word “intentionally,” in an apparent attempt to morph its run-of-the-mill breach of contract claim... quote:...raising a litany of arguments (many absent from the FAC), hoping that one of them sticks. None of them do. quote:...leads to absurdities quote:...CIG remains forever shackled to Crytek’s Engine, even if CIG has reason to believe Crytek is a sinking ship.... quote:....is unfathomable. quote:The absurdity of Crytek’s interpretation.. quote:That is absurd... quote:Scrambling to bolster its contrived interpretation... quote:Crytek again seeks to mislead the Court... quote:Defendants made the common sense point.... quote:....in Section 2.4, Crytek’s new favorite provision quote:.... it appears Crytek cannot keep its own arguments straight. quote:....if there were a logical place to restrict CIG from using a competing engine, Section 2.4 would have been the place to do it, but there is no such restriction. quote:...If that restriction existed, Section 2.4 would have been the place to do it, but it is not there. quote:In its opposition, Crytek tries to run from.... quote:Crytek also tries to escape the devastating impact.... quote:Crytek cannot have it both ways... quote:Crytek cites no legal authority for this illogical proposition.... quote:In its opposition, Crytek attempts to paste... quote:Crytek attempts to minimize the impropriety of its baseless.... quote:...as a matter of the blackest of blackletter California law quote:...underscores the overall irresponsibility of.... quote:...misguidedly attempts to equate.... quote:Plus, every lawyer knows..... quote:...is just masquerading as a claim... quote:These are new backpedaling arguments that Crytek improperly attempts to raise..... quote:...defend its inappropriate inclusion of the immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, and false Offending Allegations... This is just the tone put forth by the document. A freshman in Composition 101 doing a legal document exercise would get a C for this due to it's overall construction but the language used is extremely crude and antagonistic and makes it seem like an editorial piece rather than a legal document. You can completely delete most of the things I pulled out as examples without changing anything. We are at an extremely formal setting dealing with extremely important arguments so what does poo poo like "Crytek cannot have it both ways" supposedly add here? What does "In section 2.4, Crytek's new favorite provision," actually say about anything other than come across as a snarky jab meant entirely as an insult that has no technical or structural purpose. Reading the structure of this you see that Ortwin is incredibly unprofessional and when you combine it with his nonsense arguments you get a clear picture of how stupid this loving rear end in a top hat really is. Backers love this poo poo because it supports them and they don't care that an official legal response in a multi million dollar lawsuit sounds like a first draft youtube rant. Another telling thing is the use of complex vocabulary alongside such crude syntax. "These arguments are inapposite and the court should cram this axiomatic rambling because it is an impertinent, illogical mess." Not only is this poo poo constructed at the level of a high school paper but it's obviously trying to punch above it's weight in vocabulary. I'm glad this is now a permanent and official part of the Star Citizen saga and I'm sure it will be studied for years to come. VictorianQueerLit fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jan 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Erris: Ah the whole thing takes me back... Seems like only yesterday Relay was saying this about Squadron, but it was two years ago...
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Bofast posted:Good to know they are taking their security seriously They take it as seriously as they take their gameplay. Wuxi posted:At this point Ortwinn knows as good as everyone here how hosed they are. Everything they write is an appeal to the masses, to get as much money as possible from the backers, paying for the next round of boni for the execs before the court slam dunks CIG into the dirt and the dream ends. I genuinely think this is the case. There are only three groups of people who will read that response, and only one of those groups is going to be a source of funding for CIG. If you're confident that your company is well and truly hosed then you're going to do everything in your power to appease the group actually paying you. Quavers posted:The gradual walking back of promised features and gameplay continues: This is amazing. Star Citizen Litany of Lies Original Promise: "Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play)" New Truth: Isolated co-op missions outside the campaign. Original Promise: "Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU)" New Truth: "We will be live and in operation for some time before anybody even looks at private servers." Original Promise: We have backed Oculus Rift and will support it in Star Citizen / Squadron 42. New Truth: "I can't answer that." (45:31) Original Promise: "Star Citizen will launch with 100 star systems." New Truth: 5-10 Systems at Launch Original Promise: Persistent Universe (hosted by US) New Truth: Stolen ships will disappear when you log out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
VictorianQueerLit posted:editorial piece rather than a legal document Yes, it reads like an editorial piece, and not a legal document. Bad look.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Malachite_Dragon posted:Metru-Nui Forgive me my keystrokes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
To revisit the quote again:quote:a “game” (Star Citizen) and a “related game” (Squadron 42). In your court filing, you just explicitly stated that Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are two separate games. Good work, everybody! Why did you even file this? You could've just waited for Feb. 9th when the judge will obviously deny the motion to dismiss, but you had to dig the hole deeper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:It's uncanny how people with actual talent are able to tell that Star Citizen is a scam and that Derek Smart was right, I wonder if there is a connection The game of Star Citizen is out of sight, And Croberts has been taking you up the pipe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
CIG's Next Response posted:I heard Skadden were a bunch of loving bitches. WEST SYDE!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Reverse The loving Hearse Thx. I tried to watch this twice and fell asleep both time within 5 mins. No joke! SomethingJones posted:Jared keep giving him rope, you are doing an AWESOME job. Virtual Captain fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jan 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
lol imagine being Ortwin Freyermuth right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
Quavers posted:The gradual walking back of promised features and gameplay continues: Just wow. There should be riots going on all over spectrum right now. Stick a fork in persistence, it's done. 'Squadron 42 is... maybe... going to miss 2018.' 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
thatguy posted:
For a skilled goon to shop, with "gently caress The Skaddon": 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
A Neurotic Corncob posted:lol imagine being Ortwin Freyermuth right now. I wonder how much he's paying himself to represent his business interests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Oh Erris... You poor bastard.Erris, pleading posted:"One of the things that always made me most excited about Star Citizen... It is... Chris Roberts answering questions. That's what gave me faith in the game, it's that person in charge of the game willing to sit there and talk for literally hours about his plans, and answer questions. And so, I was really really happy to see Chris on RTV this week for the entire hour he answered questions, I really, really hope that they do this more often and I'm hoping everyone pushes them to do that more often because -- I know Chris is really busy... And I know that his team need him a lot, and he does a lot of work, BUT, when it comes down to it other backers are kind of part of the team, too, and WE need Chris, too. Chris honestly gives faith in the project, in my opinion." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
It's going to be really interesting to see who breaks and who shrugs, washes off the clown makeup and moves on to the next patreon project.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
Even GTA lets you keep stolen vehicles. As long as the garage doesn't eat them. Stolen ships disappearing. That's a fundamental change in so many game mechanics. It's actually a pretty wild admission. It blows apart persistence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
XK posted:Even GTA lets you keep stolen vehicles. As long as the garage doesn't eat them. The  thread is chock full of varying stages of grief, 400 comments and counting
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
I'm sure they'll come up with stolen spaceship insurance or something of that nature. Once you steal something you bribe the space dock to keep it. This gets away from the pay2win model and stays within their pay2pay philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
XK posted:Even GTA lets you keep stolen vehicles. As long as the garage doesn't eat them. I vaguely remember something being said around 2013 along the idea that if you stole a ship you would have to get the "VIN" changed and papers for it otherwise you would be marked by the space cops as having a stolen ship and chased. I can't remember if this was something said by CIG or some dreamer cooking this up. Am I crazy or does anyone else remember something similar? Stolen ships disappearing when logged off would be really lame to a pirate play style. I guess it goes to the theme that Star Citizen can't have fun in the game anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
Nunes posted:I vaguely remember something being said around 2013 along the idea that if you stole a ship you would have to get the "VIN" changed and papers for it otherwise you would be marked by the space cops as having a stolen ship and chased. I can't remember if this was something said by CIG or some dreamer cooking this up. Am I crazy or does anyone else remember something similar? Stolen ships disappearing when logged off would be really lame to a pirate play style. I guess it goes to the theme that Star Citizen can't have fun in the game anywhere. I was just going to post this. I also remember something about forging VINs and such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/faq/Insurance-FAQquote:What will you do to combat insurance fraud? I'm pretty sure it's also in one of their videos somewhere, probably accompanied by a bunch of hand waving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
Nunes posted:I vaguely remember something being said around 2013 along the idea that if you stole a ship you would have to get the "VIN" changed and papers for it otherwise you would be marked by the space cops as having a stolen ship and chased. I can't remember if this was something said by CIG or some dreamer cooking this up. Am I crazy or does anyone else remember something similar? Stolen ships disappearing when logged off would be really lame to a pirate play style. I guess it goes to the theme that Star Citizen can't have fun in the game anywhere. That is definitely some BDSSE bullshit crobbler/cig mumbled into the dream amplifier and this is a huge walkback of mechanics they likely owe tens of millions of dollars of sales to
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
None of that sounds like a "Whoops, despawned" mechanic. Add it to the tracker!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/faq/Insurance-FAQ What will you do to combat insurance fraud? A ship cannot be sold without a legitimate hull id code. Claiming on the insurance policy invalidates the hull code on your previous ship, so if it was captured or stolen the new owner will be unable to sell the ship at a regular ship dealer. Additionally if you have claimed on a policy and someone is flying the stolen ship in a well policed system, the hull id will mark it as a stolen ship, the law will be after you and landing privileges will be denied on any lawful planet. You will be able to fly a “hot” ship to the less savory parts of the Star Citizen universe, where you will probably be able to land and may be able to purchase a fake hull id code, but it will take effort and not necessarily be cheap. Finally the Advocacy takes insurance fraud very seriously. If it can be proven that a player has colluded with another player to defraud the insurance company, that hull’s lifetime insurance will be invalidated and the player may have to pay a large amount of credits to keep their record clean and not be marked as a wanted criminal. Since at least before Nov 2014: http://archive.is/https://robertsspaceindustries.com/faq/Insurance-FAQ e: fb by XK 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
CIG saying you can't do something in a game they'll never release seems like a really bad idea unless the plan is to release a statement informing that due to feedback everything will magically be a different way best community best game keep pledging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Nunes posted:I vaguely remember something being said around 2013 along the idea that if you stole a ship you would have to get the "VIN" changed and papers for it otherwise you would be marked by the space cops as having a stolen ship and chased. I can't remember if this was something said by CIG or some dreamer cooking this up. Am I crazy or does anyone else remember something similar? Stolen ships disappearing when logged off would be really lame to a pirate play style. I guess it goes to the theme that Star Citizen can't have fun in the game anywhere. I found where I read that. It was from the CIG Insurance FAQ https://robertsspaceindustries.com/faq/Insurance-FAQ  Edit: HAH you all beat me to the link. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
I don't know why the devs even bother saying anything anymore. Every possible thing they could state has a counter promise. lol, it was so obvious everyone here found it, but their devs didn't know about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
G0RF posted:Oh Erris... You poor bastard. Never forget that someone actually posted this in earnest and called the thread "Every Time I Listen to Chris Roberts Talk for 20+ Minutes": 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
Quavers posted:The gradual walking back of promised features and gameplay continues: Ah good. We can remove one role and replace it with another. The inevitable consequence of piracy it turns out, in SC, isn’t much at all after all. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
This thread is so much better when you enter through page 1 and get to watch that happy hollidays gif for a second or two before zooming off to read some new post about people debating if Squadron 42 is coming out in a few weeks or if persistence is right around the corner. Nothing like watching a couple of T posing models with dead eyes staring off into the horizon to really set the tone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:52
|
|