SomethingJones posted:

Ben Lesnick played through all of Squadron 42 and Chris Roberts can't even come up with its 2018 roadmap.

And a SQ42 roadmap won't be published btw. Because it'll be added straight into the lawsuit as evidence that there's a second title in development. That's why I've been banging on about it, there's the Chris transcript THERE in which he says the roadmap will be a realtime mirror of the internal JIRA, and here is Skadden HERE saying that a second title is in breach of the licence.

So it took CIG 3 months to realise what I realised in 2 minutes. They can't publish a SQ42 roadmap, you will never see a SQ42 roadmap because CIG know loving rightly they don't have a license to develop SQ42 on CryEngine.

veiled boner fuel posted:

tldr: there isn't any real exploration in SC, it'll be like Eve, at best.

Dark Off posted:

that didn't stop them from admitting it in the legal document



someone needs to adjust the 4th stimpire lore a bit.

Dementropy posted:

veiled boner fuel posted:

tldr: there isn't any real exploration in SC, it'll be like Eve, at best.

EminusSleepus posted:

SelenicMartian posted:

One thing the backers can't imagine exploring is the possibility of SC not coming out.
Chris will deliver beyond the wildest dreams.

A Neurotic Corncob posted:

She's doing a pretty good Jim Carrey face there.

Deathsquid posted:

14 disciples of Christ Robbers (where is he btw, preparing the last supper or what?)

Edit: Oh, maybe Ben ate the previous last supper and they have to refactor the pipelines.

Dementropy posted:

AP posted:

The funny bit approaches.

Streetroller posted:

Pucker up, butter cup.

So, you're saying the Defendants don't know what version control is?

Dark Off posted:

that didn't stop them from admitting it in the legal document



someone needs to adjust the 4th stimpire lore a bit.

Beet Wagon posted:

They can’t be allowed to have all of our previous versions because that would put us at serious risk of having to admit we never fully remove all of the cryengine code from our game, you see.

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

I want to live in a world where CIG "accidentally" deleted everything and then the build Disco leaked ends up somehow loving them over.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Hold the loving phone... I thought CIG have only been developing Star Citizen since 2015? What the gently caress is this 5 and a half years (+1 year for prototyping) bullshit?!

G0RF posted:

There’s probably even more lorewank out there preemptively normalizing their next level fleecing plans. But really, just listen to Lando pre-hype the “brand new game mechanic that’s taken the Star Citizen community by storm” on a video with 1000 downvoted. Then later to the Roberts Brothers and Haddock talking through it all. It’s worth watching it all as preamble to what is surely aimed to be their biggest revenue diversification pivot.

Virtual Captain posted:

2016 Ben Lesnick: "To be honest, specifically, the likes, dislikes does not especially matter to us. We're still in a very much gut feeling in terms of reaction. After doing this for a couple years we kind of have our sources for how people, the sources we trust to actually represent the community so, I know when this person is outraged and they're complaining that I should definitely listen to them and we should think about things different, but pure numbers for, "They didn't retweet this enough" or "This ship sold 80% instead of 90% of what we expected" not especially valuable to me personally."

Yes CIG listens to the backers.

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

I was one of those sources. It doesn't mean a loving thing.

Virtual Captain posted:

Just a note here, The kickstarter ended on Nov 19th, 2012 and according to this document they signed the GLA on Nov 20th, 2012.

The way I see this. If CryTek built the demo, pitch, etc. They had no idea if it would go anywhere and formally sold it to Chris/CIG the day after the kickstarter ended (presumably CIG now had the money)

quote:

At the same time as choosing an engine to run his prototype, Roberts was building the team that would help him make it. With no idea of whether the prototype would be a success, it didn’t make sense to set up a studio and hire staff at the beginning. Instead, Roberts set up his studio virtually and, besides a few freelancers, delegated a lot of the grunt work to third-party contractors who already had established teams of developers. He contacted Sergio Rosas, Roberts’ art director back in the 1990s, who now ran an outsourcing company called CGBot in Austin, Texas. He also hired a studio called Behaviour to create assets for the prototype.

As this small team started to work on the prototype, the project attracted the attention of a couple of people working over at Crytek, the game engine’s developer. Sean Tracey, Paul Reindell and Hannes Appell were all fans of the Wing Commander games and lent a hand where they could. Appell, for instance, who is now director of cinematics on Star Citizen, created videos to show off the prototype to investors using the assets that were created by Behaviour and CGBot.

Even as a prototype, Star Citizen was a global game. Chris, working out of LA, was joined by developers in San Francisco, Austin, Montreal, and Mexico (with a little help from Crytek out in Frankfurt). This early remote setup “made me think well, maybe we don't need to have one centralised studio”, Roberts told me. “Maybe we can spread this out and we can collaborate across the different areas and go to where the talent is.”

This setup, however, would be the start of another set of desires issues during Star Citizen’s early development: a spread-out set of developers with oceans between them faced challenges that a more centralised studio wouldn’t have. From the very beginning, CIG was using third-party contractors, remote studios, and virtual collaboration. All those choices made sense when developing the prototype, but as the team, scope, and budget of Star Citizen grew, the studio structure would have to radically adapt.

Virtual Captain posted:

2016 Ben Lesnick: "To be honest, specifically, the likes, dislikes does not especially matter to us. We're still in a very much gut feeling in terms of reaction. After doing this for a couple years we kind of have our sources for how people, the sources we trust to actually represent the community so, I know when this person is outraged and they're complaining that I should definitely listen to them and we should think about things different, but pure numbers for, "They didn't retweet this enough" or "This ship sold 80% instead of 90% of what we expected" not especially valuable to me personally."

Yes CIG listens to the backers.

Quavers posted:

David Swafford's Media company earning its monthly payment: a new shill account appears...

iospace posted:

Question, for you specifically, what was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for you to finally go "That's it, I'm done."?

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

Huh. I guess development really didn't start until the Kickstarter ended. Which meant that Chris lied in his Mittani interview. That or they're lying here and know full well that development started a year before the pitch with CryTek.

Amazing how much assets like the Hornet and Bengal look like those ships in the teaser video. You know, the one that wasn't part of game development.

Is lying in these documents bad?