LCL-Dead posted:

As a side note, this was the last email I received from CIG:

Loiosh posted:

Just to save some time, my source for the GTA V information was here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/07/grand-theft-auto-dan-houser and http://www.develop-online.net/studio-profile/inside-rockstar-north-part-1-the-vision/0183989 The latter: "For GTA V, that discussion started as GTA IV was wrapping up – almost five years ago – although the latest game has been in full production for just three years." Similar, though longer for Fallout 4: "The development spanned seven years, delivering successes, failures, and unexpected detours like porting Skyrim to the Xbox One (keep reading). Just 25 days before Fallout 4 releases, the creators sound off on the lengthy development process" source: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/11/06/the-making-of-fallout-4.aspx?PostPageIndex=1



The first two years for FO4 were mostly preproduction (artwork) and setting their target, location research and technology research, like deciding to switch to a deferred renderer. Then full production slowly ramped up. One thing to note is that Bethesda's RPG team is significantly smaller than CIG. I recall the article mentioning they've stuck with a team size of around 100, compared to Rockstar's size of over 1,000.

That's what I based my statement on, I just didn't link the GTAV blogs to keep the size down.

Loiosh posted:

They are doing external tests of the 2.0 release with subs. It's been mostly the testers group with a few invites. So you could just ask them to pull up the Crytek debug. I mean, you can fault them for a lot of stuff, like broken promises, delays, having terrible customer service and being digital gaming poo about refunds, but the technical aspects are quite open. You can even see some of the zoning globals in Bugsmashers 13 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIXl4Ug3-s - Where they fix an LOD issue that is caused by the zone system (passing the global position instead of the relative to zone position).

Valatar posted:

That's 60 months, not 72.


63ish months, not 76ish.

Loiosh posted:

FreeSpace (1, 2)

Loiosh posted:

I think around $1,500 or so including gifts. It's all in the goonswarm google spreadsheet, though not updated for some package upgrades. (For those curious, this is under half of what I've gifted to friends on Steam: )

I consider it a sunk cost at this point. At the moment I'm concerned that CIG may fail, but I would, being honest, like to see them succeed, because I like the idea of the game.

Agrajag posted:

now show us the new top of the line mocap equipment

Agrajag posted:

my understanding was that was exactly what they are doing for Santa Monica no?

Octopode posted:

The systems present in 2.0 represent a much larger chunk of the required systems implementation for the project than the art it includes does for the required art completion of the project, but that fact doesn't make completing that code any faster. Sorry, I don't know how to explain the point any better.

Octopode posted:

Yep, zero programming experience. I mean, that's not demonstrably false just for my involvement in Star Citizen alone, let alone my professional life, or anything.

Edit: Have you figured out how to read API documentation yet?

Amun Khonsu posted:

Theyve been saying this for 3 yrs. At some point ppl have to tilt their heads and question wtf is going on with this "framework"

Octopode posted:

It wasn't a dodge, it was the only response you deserved. None of the conclusions I've posted are hard to reach if you read through the mountains of information available, but no, there's no nice clean source that compiles it all in one place, and I'm not going to take the time to make one for you. Frankly, you've shown that you don't take the time to try and understand information even when it is presented to you, repeatedly, and your response to someone trying to impart new information to you is hostility, which is depressing to watch.

Octopode posted:

CIG really does not have a very deep bench on the programming side and never has--I'd guess only about 10% of their team are actually programmers, and they are spread very thin over different chunks and systems, so a single loss is a significant chunk of their total manpower. I would be surprised if they have more two or three people who have worked on the FPS portions in-house.


Secondly, programmers are not interchangeable, particularly when working primarily on bug fixing; it'll probably take a week just for his replacement(s) to get familiar enough with his code to be marginally effective unless he's much better than average at writing readable code.

Octopode posted:

I'm not sure what your reasoning behind the statement that there isn't a proof of concept whatsoever is, so I can't refute it; it's been demonstrated pretty publicly. If it's based on the collective idea that the demonstrations were all smoke and mirrors, I won't bother to argue the point because there's not a rational argument capable of countering that belief, I'll just wait for the release to do it. But as far as the overall completion, it's not too hard to take the concept for the finished game, dissect it into required component systems and their relative complexity, and compare that against what's been demonstrated thus far to get a rough idea of completion and how far they have left to go.

CrazyTolradi posted:

Are we sure Octopode doesn't work at CIG?

Octopode posted:

No. I work here. I manage operations for https://this and integration for [url="https:///"]this[/url], while making sure that their stuff keeps working in [url=]here[/url].

Octopode posted:

Why would they need to be deleted? He's under the assumption I've posted anything that isn't already public information, or that should be controlled; he's wrong, but he won't let that won't stop him.

ZenMaster posted:

Olesh posted:

Derek is half right, but only in theory - if enough people actually chargeback them over this, they lose their ability to process credit cards for an indeterminate period of time on that account. The target number isn't very large, either - either a fixed number (something like $50k) over a certain period of time or 1% of their transactions over the same period of time, whichever is lower. The major card brands (Visa/Mastercard/etc) are the ones who won't tolerate this, but on the one hand whoever they're using as a payment processor is liable to turn a blind eye to things like account juggling (to spread out chargebacks and avoid hitting the limit on any one account) because they're making a crapton of money off of CIG so long as nobody officially reports them doing it. On the other hand, there's not exactly a mechanism for reporting this sort of thing and even if one of their accounts gets closed down they can just funnel transactions through another account in future.

That's why this is only half right (sorry Derek) - it's not really remotely plausible that enough people will go through the chargeback process to get any of CIG's processor accounts shut down, because CIG is capable of juggling the accounts to spread out the chargebacks to avoid any one account getting hit heavily enough to matter. Even if one of their accounts gets shut down from an excess of chargebacks, their related accounts are not likely to be touched - it would take at least two accounts shut down in this way to demonstrate a pattern of behavior, and we've already got demonstrated proof that they've got transactions coming through multiple sources, meaning the bar for any individual account to get nailed for chargebacks is going to be rather high, let alone multiple accounts crossing that threshold. In practice the chance that they'll lose the ability to process credit cards through any of their accounts is so remote as to be effectively zero, let alone all of their accounts.

On the other hand, chargeback fees are _totally_ a thing; typically anywhere from 25$-75$ a transaction, and not only do payment processors take a percentage cut of the transaction, about half the time processors will also charge the same cut on issued refunds. If my payment processor charges 4% on a 100$ transaction, that is later refunded via chargeback, that means that not only do I have to refund the full $100 to the consumer (as per Visa and Mastercard, fees for using credit cards cannot be passed to the consumer), I get hit with a 4$ charge for accepting the transaction, possibly hit with a 4$ charge for refunding the transaction, and also hit with a $25 (or more!) fee for the chargeback. So that $100 in (that's actually $96 in pocket) ends up being a total of $129 or more out.

The reason CIG is trying not to issue full refunds is because every refund is a loss for them; even if their processor doesn't double-dip on refunds they're still out a percentage of the transaction, and chargeback threats are not only worse but require administrative oversight to ensure that the funding model isn't accidentally taken down by having too many chargebacks issued through the same processors. When they're trying to deny any individual their refund, it's because ANY refund is a net loss, and they're trying to balance how much they can try and hang onto without refunding vs the likelihood that you'll actually go through the chargeback process and cost them an extra chunk of change. They can juggle accounts all they want, there's no getting out of the chargeback fees which is why they still want to avoid them.


Edit: This is really as simple as a discussion of this gets - without knowing the specific details of the contracts they signed with their payment processor(s), whether or not they're held to stricter standards or the specifics of what might happen IF an account gets taken down through chargebacks aren't really on the table for speculation. Any individual payment processor IS absolutely capable of connecting the dots between companies, but in general due diligence on the processor side is limited to the primary account holder and whether or not that individual has the authority to sign for processing on behalf of their company.

AP posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99CE7EeVAa0&t=20s

It's a lot better than I expected, I think people will be bored in a week and the project is still doomed, but it's surprising they actually managed this much.

Chalks posted:

People saying it's jittery are totally right but it's not a terribly damning criticism given the clearly unfinished state of the game.

Star citizen is an elaborate lobby system where players load into instanced dogfighting levels in their space ships, some of which have fps levels within them. Slap on some progression and some NPCs that sell things and give out missions and that is the entire game. Most of the concepts are shown in this latest release in their basic form, you add another year or two of fixing bugs and adding assets and you will have a game.

It might not be a good game but I feel like we're passed the point of thinking they'll never release anything now.

D_Smart posted:

oh-oh. First it was Illfonic. Here we go again.

AP posted:

Package on left is offered at "it's all-time lowest price" every day, package on right they are offering 1000 of each day of the sale.

I think CIG is focusing too much on foreign languages and need some people who speak English.

[Prices above have 20% VAT]

Octopode posted:

No, I'm not. You made the same statement about an independent FPS module here that you did the first time we had this conversation. It was never independent. But you keep making that claim for some reason (and then change the argument when someone else points out you're still wrong about it).

Octopode posted:

Then why did you bother with the rest of that post when you start by conceding the same point I was making to begin with? I didn't change anything around--he implied there was something wrong with me stating the FPS was never intended to be an independent thing, even though it wasn't. I don't know how you read all these other things into correcting that single fact.

Sarsapariller posted:

Another patch. These are pretty small and not really worth noting so I may stop transcribing to the thread until they release some gameplay fixes of note. It's nice that they're hammering out crash bugs so quickly, but nobody aside from testers really cares.

2.0.0d Patch Notes

Hangar Module Fixes

• Fixed an issue where the Hangar elevator was not working and would cause the client to crash when attempting to use it to go to Crusader.
  

Social Module Fixes (actually PU)

• Fixed an issue where players could not fire FPS weapons in or around Cry-Astro.
  
• Fixed several issues with Quantum Travel involving collision and nearby stations causing malfunctions or false errors.
  
• Particle effects have received a performance pass, particularly around thrusters and engines.
  
• Fixed an issue where the Constellation would remain in a partial Quantum Travel state if the pilot left his chair mid-QT.
  
• Fixed several server-side crashes in Crusader.
  
• Fixes have been focused around crashes that involve ship spawn, destruction and server clean-up of specific events.
  
• Fixed several client-side crashes in Crusader.
  
• Fixed a crash that would occur when players attempted to return to the hangar from Crusader.
  

admin posted:

What's important:
Glorious game breaking bugs have most likely been added
Port battles added (Capitals, Regional Capitals and Free Towns are uncapturable - see the list)
Admiralty orders added to events: as a foundation for the admiralty store and fame points (or admiralty points)
Honor kill requirements are temporarily disabled due to popular demand. They will come back stronger and improved taking into account your feedback.
Open map events foundations added: Sail around and sometimes you will find an even just for you. System is rudimentary and will act as a basis for future development of variability and epic battles on the OW.
Bots ship variety returned
Teleport now works only to Capitals
Pre-Port battle anti griefing mechanics introduced. You cannot attack vessels or groups that have BR 5x higher than yours. If you are attacking a group of ship stationed together their combined BR is taken into account. Frigate supposedly wont attack 5 santisimas sailing close to each other.

Othin posted:

ok cool good idea. everyone post patch notes for every game ever.

edit:

here is a random UO patch I found

Mirificus posted:

Octopode posted:

You wan to try and base this discussion on judicial standards of evidence, without the institutions that support such standards, like discovery and investigation, so there is no way to satisfy your evidentiary requirements to your satisfaction. However, all the available evidence DOES support my claim, and none of it supports yours.

You're being just as irrational as Karl or anyone else defending CIG's practices has ever been, so, congratulations.

happyhippy posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyPoaVRErE0

Meanwhile over in E:D.

That's some impressive LoD poo poo.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Unless my math is wrong...

8 hours a day x 5 days a week x 4 weeks per month = 160 hours

Random/Low payrate: 16$ x 300 employees = $4800 per hour for total employee pay

160 * 4800 = $768000 per month


Now, we can guarantee that team leaders, Sandi/Chris, and others, will be paid more so you can bump that up.

Then you have to factor in the 4 studios + mocap construction + furniture/office supplies + other expenditures.

And taxes.


I'm sure someone who knows the gaming industry's payrolls will correct me, but you're already past 3/4 of a million based solely on a low pay for 300 employees.

Octopode posted:

So which features listed are not currently in 2.0?

Octopode posted:

We are discussing, specifically, 2.0 promised features versus delivered. Do we really have to resort to dozens of nested quotes to keep statements and questions in context, here?