Well i think if they stopped selling ships it would stop people being suspicious about whether they have enough to finish the game, as for derek smart i don't know what exactly they want but if they are not satisfied with that then there is something wrong with them, i am not even getting into the whole deek smart vs chris roberts thing as i am not taking a side, i am just posting my view.
Sorry but will they not be making a profit once the game goes live ?
Plus 90 million is a lot more than what they said the original game was going to cost so i don't see why they couldn't stop selling ships.
I think those screaming scam scam scam would just say look it's the beginning of the end and so on. As for making money after it goes live I am curious to see how they will do so, the selling of credits or UEC or w/e seem like not enough to me.
As for 90 million well it may have been plenty for what the game was suppose to do originally but it has went far past that at this point with all the feature creep and the thing is it is the pledgers themselves that asked for this and supported this with all those goalposts and such which CIG incidentally put a stop too even though people wanted more.
Right now the new pledges are for the creation of new ships and the like. I guess if they stopped selling ship it would mean no more new ships.
What I would like them to do is maybe stop making new models and finish up all the ships that have currently been selling, be they concept ships or not. Maybe get these all hanger ready then make more models if the game isn't live by then.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
There's also the need to break the story before anyone else does. If you know the employees are planning on telling a few other agencies you check facts as fast as possible then post, I would think.
You'd be right about that part, but we know that the story was offered to other game media sources, and they refused to run it, because there wasn't any proof. So it's not like no other outlets had access to the story. What's more likely is Escapist got taken for a ride by a group of people who knew exactly what they were trying to accomplish. The bad part though is Escapist trying to save face and act like their vetting was top notch, which it clearly wasn't as the twitter links in the Forbes article seem to illustrate. Since it's just a plain white plastic badge with a name label sticker on it.
Well i think if they stopped selling ships it would stop people being suspicious about whether they have enough to finish the game, as for derek smart i don't know what exactly they want but if they are not satisfied with that then there is something wrong with them, i am not even getting into the whole deek smart vs chris roberts thing as i am not taking a side, i am just posting my view.
Sorry but will they not be making a profit once the game goes live ?
Plus 90 million is a lot more than what they said the original game was going to cost so i don't see why they couldn't stop selling ships.
I think those screaming scam scam scam would just say look it's the beginning of the end and so on. As for making money after it goes live I am curious to see how they will do so, the selling of credits or UEC or w/e seem like not enough to me.
As for 90 million well it may have been plenty for what the game was suppose to do originally but it has went far past that at this point with all the feature creep and the thing is it is the pledgers themselves that asked for this and supported this with all those goalposts and such which CIG incidentally put a stop too even though people wanted more.
Right now the new pledges are for the creation of new ships and the like. I guess if they stopped selling ship it would mean no more new ships.
What I would like them to do is maybe stop making new models and finish up all the ships that have currently been selling, be they concept ships or not. Maybe get these all hanger ready then make more models if the game isn't live by then.
How about no more new ships and an actual game what people want, is that true the new pledges are for more new ships ?
I
don't know what the buisiness model is for when it's live but i would
of thought there would be something in place to pay staff wages and keep
the servers running.
Then again for a puppy puncher like you it shall never be safe.-
On topic though- The CR response was pure gold. seemed to be all about you and some manic ranting which served more to provide talking points to the crowd but to also reinforce the whole "its us against them- And they're evil"....And Derek Smart... And also Derek Smart...
I noticed there was a little accusation about you on there (among many) that a certain friend of his was spewing on facebook and promptly removed it for potential liability. It seems no topic is off limits regardless of relevance or truthfulness as long as it points the crowd in your direction.
hey man, wipe that shit eating grin off your face- I know its hard but...Nevermind, you deserve it. Vindication is happening faster than I thought possible. Going to be an interesting next few months.
/salute
EDIT- Also, thanks man. Even the ones hating you right now (at least some) will be thanking you down the road.
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
Wait what? Which part? The chance for rebuttal being a courtesy, or not giving a chance for rebuttal factoring into the case for slander?
I suppose good journalism would be a balanced presentation of facts from both sides. When facts are not available, you simply go to one side and then the other, looking to present two different opinions in a balanced way.
From reading the article, you can see they had little to no intention to present what the other side has to say. Either the writer had a fairly biased agenda from the start, or they are simply not a good writer (I don't read their stuff usually, so I don't know which one it is).
Calling the article "Eject, Eject!" doesn't scream a balanced argument either.
It's a biased opinion piece, not really journalism.
Well i think if they stopped selling ships it would stop people being suspicious about whether they have enough to finish the game, as for derek smart i don't know what exactly they want but if they are not satisfied with that then there is something wrong with them, i am not even getting into the whole deek smart vs chris roberts thing as i am not taking a side, i am just posting my view.
Sorry but will they not be making a profit once the game goes live ?
Plus 90 million is a lot more than what they said the original game was going to cost so i don't see why they couldn't stop selling ships.
I think those screaming scam scam scam would just say look it's the beginning of the end and so on. As for making money after it goes live I am curious to see how they will do so, the selling of credits or UEC or w/e seem like not enough to me.
As for 90 million well it may have been plenty for what the game was suppose to do originally but it has went far past that at this point with all the feature creep and the thing is it is the pledgers themselves that asked for this and supported this with all those goalposts and such which CIG incidentally put a stop too even though people wanted more.
Right now the new pledges are for the creation of new ships and the like. I guess if they stopped selling ship it would mean no more new ships.
What I would like them to do is maybe stop making new models and finish up all the ships that have currently been selling, be they concept ships or not. Maybe get these all hanger ready then make more models if the game isn't live by then.
edited your quote as your words got stuck in my quote section I fixed it and put it where it should be. *looks down*
How about no more new ships and an actual game what people want, is that true the new pledges are for more new ships ?
I
don't know what the buisiness model is for when it's live but i would
of thought there would be something in place to pay staff wages and keep
the servers running.
I am pretty sure CR mentioned something about 100mill being an objective. Yes all the new ship models that are being sold make it so that when it does go live we wont have just like 15 ships. All these ship will be available in game in some fashion. Now are they using the ship sales funds for more than just the new ships...dunno but is quite likely.
While I would be happy with them "getting on with it" and stopping everything now and getting the game out now ASAP, I also don't care if they take more time. I do believe the winners on this discussion will be the ones with the bigger wallets and ship sale are still selling quite well.
Anyways I am rather curious how this will all pan out. Will I have a nice new shiny game to play or will it suck or even will it tank due to feature creep?
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Wait what? Which part? The chance for rebuttal being a courtesy, or not giving a chance for rebuttal factoring into the case for slander?
I suppose good journalism would be a balanced presentation of facts from both sides. When facts are not available, you simply go to one side and then the other, looking to present two different opinions in a balanced way.
From reading the article, you can see they had little to no intention to present what the other side has to say. Either the writer had a fairly biased agenda from the start, or they are simply not a good writer (I don't read their stuff usually, so I don't know which one it is).
Calling the article "Eject, Eject!" doesn't scream a balanced argument either.
It's a biased opinion piece, not really journalism.
But my question wasn't aimed at whether or not the piece was balanced. Fox News isn't balanced, but I doubt anyone would argue it isn't a broadcast journalism channel.
Worst case, Escapist deliberately ignored CR's response, and the piece wasn't "balanced," even though they went back less than 24 hours and included his response word for word (why go back and include it at all if you deliberately left it out in the first place? /boggle). Best case, it hit Izzy's (wasn't that her name?) spam folder, and the Escapist corrected this mistake as soon as they could. In the end, that part is irrelevant. The claims' validity is the only relevant part. And as of right now (to me), it seems the Escapist has put more effort into trying to prove their sources (and therefore, the claims) true than CR or CIG is trying to show them false. This is all regardless of whether or not the original article is considered "balanced" journalism.
Haven't looked at the twitter pics of the supposed ID card. Honestly, it would have to be damn near a piece of notebook paper with a pencil sketch of CIG's logo and handwritten names for this slander lawsuit against Escapist to hold. CIG has to prove negligence. If what the Escapist said about their vetting process is true, that will be near impossible.
I like how they've built up Derek Smart as this giant boogeyman when in
reality he's just a relatively harmless egotistical douche nozzle. Even
better that the Stockholm syndrome infected fanboys have bought it
hook, line and sinker.
P.S. Some of you people need to learn how to cut out the superfluous quotes. There's no need to have reams of quotes in your replies.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
There's also the need to break the story before anyone else does. If you know the employees are planning on telling a few other agencies you check facts as fast as possible then post, I would think.
You'd be right about that part, but we know that the story was offered to other game media sources, and they refused to run it, because there wasn't any proof. So it's not like no other outlets had access to the story. What's more likely is Escapist got taken for a ride by a group of people who knew exactly what they were trying to accomplish. The bad part though is Escapist trying to save face and act like their vetting was top notch, which it clearly wasn't as the twitter links in the Forbes article seem to illustrate. Since it's just a plain white plastic badge with a name label sticker on it.
We know? as in we have hard facts or somebody said that it was offered to other media sources?
This is what bugs me with the majority of the SCDF responses. When the side you disagree with cannot produce hard facts (despite corroboration) it's dismissed out of hand. When the side you want to agree with produces statements with no evidence to back it up you're quite happy to claim it as facts. Absolutely zero impartiality.
Well i think if they stopped selling ships it would stop people being suspicious about whether they have enough to finish the game, as for derek smart i don't know what exactly they want but if they are not satisfied with that then there is something wrong with them, i am not even getting into the whole deek smart vs chris roberts thing as i am not taking a side, i am just posting my view.
Sorry but will they not be making a profit once the game goes live ?
Plus 90 million is a lot more than what they said the original game was going to cost so i don't see why they couldn't stop selling ships.
I think those screaming scam scam scam would just say look it's the beginning of the end and so on. As for making money after it goes live I am curious to see how they will do so, the selling of credits or UEC or w/e seem like not enough to me.
As for 90 million well it may have been plenty for what the game was suppose to do originally but it has went far past that at this point with all the feature creep and the thing is it is the pledgers themselves that asked for this and supported this with all those goalposts and such which CIG incidentally put a stop too even though people wanted more.
Right now the new pledges are for the creation of new ships and the like. I guess if they stopped selling ship it would mean no more new ships.
What I would like them to do is maybe stop making new models and finish up all the ships that have currently been selling, be they concept ships or not. Maybe get these all hanger ready then make more models if the game isn't live by then.
edited your quote as your words got stuck in my quote section I fixed it and put it where it should be. *looks down*
How about no more new ships and an actual game what people want, is that true the new pledges are for more new ships ?
I
don't know what the buisiness model is for when it's live but i would
of thought there would be something in place to pay staff wages and keep
the servers running.
I am pretty sure CR mentioned something about 100mill being an objective. Yes all the new ship models that are being sold make it so that when it does go live we wont have just like 15 ships. All these ship will be available in game in some fashion. Now are they using the ship sales funds for more than just the new ships...dunno but is quite likely.
While I would be happy with them "getting on with it" and stopping everything now and getting the game out now ASAP, I also don't care if they take more time. I do believe the winners on this discussion will be the ones with the bigger wallets and ship sale are still selling quite well.
Anyways I am rather curious how this will all pan out. Will I have a nice new shiny game to play or will it suck or even will it tank due to feature creep?
Yes it would be nice for people to get a game, i just hope it's what they expect and what they have paid for but i just have doubt that some people are going to be disappointed.
I think a lot of people would be ok with 15 ships or even 10 different types of ships when the game starts, then once the game is live then work on adding more ships to the game.
I like how they've built up Derek Smart as this giant boogeyman when in
reality he's just a relatively harmless egotistical douche nozzle. Even
better that the Stockholm syndrome infected fanboys have bought it
hook, line and sinker.
P.S. Some of you people need to learn how to cut out the superfluous quotes. There's no need to have reams of quotes in your replies.
To be honest I don't think they had to build up DS to be anything as he did that all by himself ofc some of the haters or DS fans helped that along quite nicely....lol
I just hope it doesn't take another 2 or 3 years to get the game out, i would like to try it and explore the verse before I die of old age....
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Well i think if they stopped selling ships it would stop people being suspicious about whether they have enough to finish the game, as for derek smart i don't know what exactly they want but if they are not satisfied with that then there is something wrong with them, i am not even getting into the whole deek smart vs chris roberts thing as i am not taking a side, i am just posting my view.
Sorry but will they not be making a profit once the game goes live ?
Plus 90 million is a lot more than what they said the original game was going to cost so i don't see why they couldn't stop selling ships.
I think those screaming scam scam scam would just say look it's the beginning of the end and so on. As for making money after it goes live I am curious to see how they will do so, the selling of credits or UEC or w/e seem like not enough to me.
As for 90 million well it may have been plenty for what the game was suppose to do originally but it has went far past that at this point with all the feature creep and the thing is it is the pledgers themselves that asked for this and supported this with all those goalposts and such which CIG incidentally put a stop too even though people wanted more.
Right now the new pledges are for the creation of new ships and the like. I guess if they stopped selling ship it would mean no more new ships.
What I would like them to do is maybe stop making new models and finish up all the ships that have currently been selling, be they concept ships or not. Maybe get these all hanger ready then make more models if the game isn't live by then.
edited your quote as your words got stuck in my quote section I fixed it and put it where it should be. *looks down*
How about no more new ships and an actual game what people want, is that true the new pledges are for more new ships ?
I
don't know what the buisiness model is for when it's live but i would
of thought there would be something in place to pay staff wages and keep
the servers running.
I am pretty sure CR mentioned something about 100mill being an objective. Yes all the new ship models that are being sold make it so that when it does go live we wont have just like 15 ships. All these ship will be available in game in some fashion. Now are they using the ship sales funds for more than just the new ships...dunno but is quite likely.
While I would be happy with them "getting on with it" and stopping everything now and getting the game out now ASAP, I also don't care if they take more time. I do believe the winners on this discussion will be the ones with the bigger wallets and ship sale are still selling quite well.
Anyways I am rather curious how this will all pan out. Will I have a nice new shiny game to play or will it suck or even will it tank due to feature creep?
Yes it would be nice for people to get a game, i just hope it's what they expect and what they have paid for but i just have doubt that some people are going to be disappointed.
I think a lot of people would be ok with 15 ships or even 10 different types of ships when the game starts, then once the game is live then work on adding more ships to the game.
Just work on the game and not more ship designs.
For some reason i have posted twice i must of pressed quote instead of edit comment when i wanted to add something
I am pretty sure CR mentioned something about 100mill being an objective
Is that true ?
I am sure someone said in a previous post in a diferent thread that they are suppose to have enough money to make the game unless they got it wrong.
-Well, I dont have time to catch up on all 354 posts I missed while enjoying the weekend but I bet I can make a pretty broad assumption what the bulk are about .
I'm finishing my weekend off but wanted to quickly give my take and apologize for being an asshole and getting personal.
-First, I think the Escapist will satnd by their story and the vetting process-
IF they didnt properly vet any of the quoted sources we have to discount the whole thing even though the rest may be entirely true. It certainly will make my position harder but it changes nothing... Actually, thats not true- It changes my view and position about the escapist because having journalistic ethics is probably the main thing we need right now and the buck stops there.
I think CIG is going for broke (a cornered animal is at its most dangerous) and this is an implied threat to ALL of the media.
If this goes to the mat and the escapist fights I imagine CIG will back down . If the escapist does not fight and retracts it brings into question how they could print a story they will not stand behind. sadly, there was certainly some good and valid information in there that will be discounted if they do not stand and fight. Their entire credibility is at stake.
Just because I share the position of the writer nd the website- Doesnt mean I will excuse bullshit that comes from"my side" since it hurts us in the long run, makes us look like liars and makes CIG look more credible .
-All that said- As of now- My opinion is that they will stand by the story and let CIG decide what it wants to do. It goes to court, we will get many answers (*which is why CIG will back down)- This is just another scare tactic aimed at the media and used to rally the crowd..Funding. If I'm wrong, I will be disappointed that good information will be called into question and is tainted due to poor journalism.
-But I'm finishing my weekend and will be back when we have some real info.
They are using intimidation and scare tactics to silence the media. Because that's worked so well in the past. ESPECIALLY in gaming.
I don't believe that The Escapist will cave in. In fact, I think they will double-down. And if RSI/CIG doesn't file suit, they're screwed even more.
Aside from that, I've said this since day one: the minute this lands in court, it's all about the money. And at that point, given what most of us know now and which is NOT yet public, this project is done. And depending on how things play out, I would be very surprised if someone doesn't end up in jail. Seriously.
They subjected themselves to even more legal liability with CR's rant and follow-up letter.
I've said it before, this is the beginning of the end.
As to the story being shopped around, there is nothing wrong with that. It happens all the time. When people want their voices heard, they will do that. I personally spoke to various media sources about this. They chose to bury the story.
Once they made it about "Derek Smart v Chris Roberts" nobody wanted to side with me because, well, I'm that guy. Never been one of the boys, or the pack. Just that guy building games, not dreams.
If this were me, with $90m in backer money and zero accountability, think for a min how this would have played out by now. Just think.
ps: About those ID badges; I destroyed that today in two tweets
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
CIG has to prove negligence. If what the Escapist said about their vetting process is true, that will be near impossible.
You are right that the quality of journalism is quite irrelevant in the end.
In terms of the lawsuit, can't you file one if you believe the other party is directly trying to harm your brand?
Let's say I publish an article online that has severe impacat on your public image, couldn't you hold me liable for the damages caused?
I dunno if journalist and the like are held to a different set of laws but I am pretty sure nowadays of you make claims that are proven false you can be held accountable for damages regardless of your intent but then what do I know I am not a lawyer.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Well first of all that is their lawyers letter,that is not a response from Chris or any party mentioned therein as he was requesting.
I also find it two faced that this lawyer claims it is EASILY proven otherwise. Just because they have 2 African Americans under their payroll.2 out of how many employees?What is that like 2-5%?Also it is VERY obvious that there had to be of course an ethnic minority for the claims of racism to exist lol,so i find it hilarious he is suggesting there were no minorities under employment.Furthermore when did they hire these two after perhaps rumblings there in?
From reading that entire article i got zero indication ANYTHING at all is EASILY proved as stated by this lawyer.
Point is i don't really think the whole truth is out there from either side...obviously but i also find this lawyer as nothing more than a lawyer rambling his legal speech out there making the same accusations without any proof himself.So yeah two faced lawyer who wants to brag about his family tree of journalists lol.
I think the REAL way to go about it and i think would likely be damaging to CGI would be to have private investigators lobby all the employees to find out any truths.There is still a huge problem,i have been around the work force for over 40 years and seen a LOT.Do i or anyone honestly think those two Black employees will speak up?No way in hell,they would lose their job,guaranteed because it would be obvious since there is only two of them.I feel if you ask anyone that has been in the workforce for many years have all seen some illegal acts by employers.
If i was the that press guy and had the lawsuit on me,i would go hire the same people that uncovered the slanderous actions by EA against their employees.Even still it takes a LOT of people to speak up not a few.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
CIG has to prove negligence. If what the Escapist said about their vetting process is true, that will be near impossible.
You are right that the quality of journalism is quite irrelevant in the end.
In terms of the lawsuit, can't you file one if you believe the other party is directly trying to harm your brand?
Let's say I publish an article online that has severe impacat on your public image, couldn't you hold me liable for the damages caused?
There are four general parts to a defamation (libel or slander, this case would actually be libel) case:
First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.
Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.
Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.
Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages.
(Emphasis added by myself, and the information is provided by FindLaw.com)
If you reread the Escapist's source verification article.. If that isn't bold-faced lies, CIG will lose this case. And, as others have said, CR will also have to provide all the evidence to the courts to prove the statements made were false and defamatory (including, more than likely, spending reports and email correspondence within the company).
EDIT- I should also add that the Escapist's law team might seek to prove CR is a limited-purpose public figure in the realm of gaming and this controversy. If that is proven, CIG will actually have to prove actual malice in the case, a higher standard than negligence.
ps: About those ID badges; I destroyed that today in two tweets
I have 3 of 4 of those badges that are all identical, also presumably purchased from HID global. So by your point anyone could be an employee of CIG just because they have the ability to put their name on one?
Well, tomorrow should be an interesting day for this developing story. It sounds to me like when you strip the rhetoric and threats away from the CIG responses, their main complaint is that The Escapist's piece did not adhere to the highest standards of investigative journalism.
To which I'll say, be careful what you ask for, sometimes you'll get exactly that.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The amusing part about all of this back and forth bullshit with CIG is that if they'd just open up the accounting ledger and give everyone some transparency about the crowdfunded money, then most of this bullshit would stop.
We spent 'x' on payroll, We spent 'x' on equipment, We spent 'x' on office space, We spent 'x' on voice acting, We spent 'x' on motion capture, My wife and I are paying ourselves 'x' amount per year to create this game.
Sure, there will be new bitching in the form of "Why did you guys spend so much money on that?" and "I didn't crowdfund this game so you can make a million per year salary!", but no one will be able to say that the game isn't being produced. No one will be able to call it vaporware.
The amusing part about all of this back and forth bullshit with CIG is that if they'd just open up the accounting ledger and give everyone some transparency about the crowdfunded money, then most of this bullshit would stop.
They don't even need to do that imo - all they ever needed was release a fully integrated closed alpha or beta release to the backers so that they can login in and see that it is already playable, but with lots of missing features.
That's really all that I think the backers are hanging for anyways. They are not really asking for a full release game now, just something that is at least more integrated and closer to a full set of gameplay than hanger + arena commander (which is basically not a game atm - it is more like testing engines than anything else with only those 2 components).
i wanna know with all the people on this website backing Dsmart.. My question for you is. How may Games from Dsmart do you own? and currently play? LOL
i wanna know with all the people on this website backing Dsmart.. My question for you is. How may Games from Dsmart do you own? and currently play? LOL
Who's backing Dsmart? I think most are holding this whole situation very suspect. I honestly don't think Dsmart has anything to do with it. Other than he injected himself into the controversy here. At 90 million if Star Citizen is doing as poorly as some is suggesting, the whole thing is going to come out anyways.
Maybe you can get a few million and tank the project laughing your way to the bank. But 90 million? nah. If the article that Escapist put out has a shred of truth in it, the game is done. And that's why all the fans are freaking out right now.
i wanna know with all the people on this website backing Dsmart.. My question for you is. How may Games from Dsmart do you own? and currently play? LOL
Nice try, you need to learn how to build a good straw man argument though, this was really pathetic. I will refer you to Chris Roberts first reply, he does a pretty decent although very obvious job at building the Derek Smart straw man.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
The amusing part about all of this back and forth bullshit with CIG is that if they'd just open up the accounting ledger and give everyone some transparency about the crowdfunded money, then most of this bullshit would stop.
We spent 'x' on payroll, We spent 'x' on equipment, We spent 'x' on office space, We spent 'x' on voice acting, We spent 'x' on motion capture, My wife and I are paying ourselves 'x' amount per year to create this game.
Sure, there will be new bitching in the form of "Why did you guys spend so much money on that?" and "I didn't crowdfund this game so you can make a million per year salary!", but no one will be able to say that the game isn't being produced. No one will be able to call it vaporware.
I've thought about this as well as I'm sure have a lot of folks following this story. The thing is, though, if CIG starts giving out detailed information then I foresee Derek Smart in all of his self-proclaimed expertise criticizing every single line item in that report and stirring up even more bullshit. He'll be spouting things like "there's no reason they should have spent X amount on Y. I've made a dozen shitty, forgettable games and it never cost me that much!" I can imagine that with more information at their disposal the detractors could use it as ammunition to try and disrupt the game's progress even further.
Having said that, it probably wouldn't hurt at this point for CIG to reveal a ballpark figure about how long they can continue development with their current funds. A statement like "with our current funds, we can pay for the game's develop for another 6 months based on our cost history thus far" or whatever might be in order at this point. But a detailed expense report? I don't know ... that may actually make things worse for them even if it's on the up-and-up.
Every publicly listed company in the US creates a yearly financial report and you don't see them being attacked over every little line item in there. People like transparency and if the equity is in the green no one will complain and those that do will be shut up faster than you can say "Derek Smart".
I have said this many times before: There is no good reason not to disclose your financials like every other publicly listed company in the world does. If you have nothing to hide then this will only help your Company.
If the company as a whole is healthy then it does not matter how much they spend or what the line items say. In fact, if the books are in order the press will surely praise the project to the crowdfunding heavens. They will fuel the hype train an make it go so fast your heads will spin.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
Comments
As for 90 million well it may have been plenty for what the game was suppose to do originally but it has went far past that at this point with all the feature creep and the thing is it is the pledgers themselves that asked for this and supported this with all those goalposts and such which CIG incidentally put a stop too even though people wanted more.
Right now the new pledges are for the creation of new ships and the like. I guess if they stopped selling ship it would mean no more new ships.
What I would like them to do is maybe stop making new models and finish up all the ships that have currently been selling, be they concept ships or not. Maybe get these all hanger ready then make more models if the game isn't live by then.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living.
If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
From reading the article, you can see they had little to no intention to present what the other side has to say. Either the writer had a fairly biased agenda from the start, or they are simply not a good writer (I don't read their stuff usually, so I don't know which one it is).
Calling the article "Eject, Eject!" doesn't scream a balanced argument either.
It's a biased opinion piece, not really journalism.
I am pretty sure CR mentioned something about 100mill being an objective. Yes all the new ship models that are being sold make it so that when it does go live we wont have just like 15 ships. All these ship will be available in game in some fashion. Now are they using the ship sales funds for more than just the new ships...dunno but is quite likely.
While I would be happy with them "getting on with it" and stopping everything now and getting the game out now ASAP, I also don't care if they take more time. I do believe the winners on this discussion will be the ones with the bigger wallets and ship sale are still selling quite well.
Anyways I am rather curious how this will all pan out. Will I have a nice new shiny game to play or will it suck or even will it tank due to feature creep?
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Worst case, Escapist deliberately ignored CR's response, and the piece wasn't "balanced," even though they went back less than 24 hours and included his response word for word (why go back and include it at all if you deliberately left it out in the first place? /boggle). Best case, it hit Izzy's (wasn't that her name?) spam folder, and the Escapist corrected this mistake as soon as they could. In the end, that part is irrelevant. The claims' validity is the only relevant part. And as of right now (to me), it seems the Escapist has put more effort into trying to prove their sources (and therefore, the claims) true than CR or CIG is trying to show them false. This is all regardless of whether or not the original article is considered "balanced" journalism.
Haven't looked at the twitter pics of the supposed ID card. Honestly, it would have to be damn near a piece of notebook paper with a pencil sketch of CIG's logo and handwritten names for this slander lawsuit against Escapist to hold. CIG has to prove negligence. If what the Escapist said about their vetting process is true, that will be near impossible.
P.S. Some of you people need to learn how to cut out the superfluous quotes. There's no need to have reams of quotes in your replies.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
We know? as in we have hard facts or somebody said that it was offered to other media sources?
This is what bugs me with the majority of the SCDF responses. When the side you disagree with cannot produce hard facts (despite corroboration) it's dismissed out of hand. When the side you want to agree with produces statements with no evidence to back it up you're quite happy to claim it as facts.
Absolutely zero impartiality.
I think a lot of people would be ok with 15 ships or even 10 different types of ships when the game starts, then once the game is live then work on adding more ships to the game.
I just hope it doesn't take another 2 or 3 years to get the game out, i would like to try it and explore the verse before I die of old age....
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I don't believe that The Escapist will cave in. In fact, I think they will double-down. And if RSI/CIG doesn't file suit, they're screwed even more.
Aside from that, I've said this since day one: the minute this lands in court, it's all about the money. And at that point, given what most of us know now and which is NOT yet public, this project is done. And depending on how things play out, I would be very surprised if someone doesn't end up in jail. Seriously.
They subjected themselves to even more legal liability with CR's rant and follow-up letter.
I've said it before, this is the beginning of the end.
As to the story being shopped around, there is nothing wrong with that. It happens all the time. When people want their voices heard, they will do that. I personally spoke to various media sources about this. They chose to bury the story.
Once they made it about "Derek Smart v Chris Roberts" nobody wanted to side with me because, well, I'm that guy. Never been one of the boys, or the pack. Just that guy building games, not dreams.
If this were me, with $90m in backer money and zero accountability, think for a min how this would have played out by now. Just think.
ps: About those ID badges; I destroyed that today in two tweets
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living.
If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
In terms of the lawsuit, can't you file one if you believe the other party is directly trying to harm your brand?
Let's say I publish an article online that has severe impacat on your public image, couldn't you hold me liable for the damages caused?
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I also find it two faced that this lawyer claims it is EASILY proven otherwise. Just because they have 2 African Americans under their payroll.2 out of how many employees?What is that like 2-5%?Also it is VERY obvious that there had to be of course an ethnic minority for the claims of racism to exist lol,so i find it hilarious he is suggesting there were no minorities under employment.Furthermore when did they hire these two after perhaps rumblings there in?
From reading that entire article i got zero indication ANYTHING at all is EASILY proved as stated by this lawyer.
Point is i don't really think the whole truth is out there from either side...obviously but i also find this lawyer as nothing more than a lawyer rambling his legal speech out there making the same accusations without any proof himself.So yeah two faced lawyer who wants to brag about his family tree of journalists lol.
I think the REAL way to go about it and i think would likely be damaging to CGI would be to have private investigators lobby all the employees to find out any truths.There is still a huge problem,i have been around the work force for over 40 years and seen a LOT.Do i or anyone honestly think those two Black employees will speak up?No way in hell,they would lose their job,guaranteed because it would be obvious since there is only two of them.I feel if you ask anyone that has been in the workforce for many years have all seen some illegal acts by employers.
If i was the that press guy and had the lawsuit on me,i would go hire the same people that uncovered the slanderous actions by EA against their employees.Even still it takes a LOT of people to speak up not a few.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
- First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.
- Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.
- Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.
- Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages.
(Emphasis added by myself, and the information is provided by FindLaw.com)If you reread the Escapist's source verification article.. If that isn't bold-faced lies, CIG will lose this case. And, as others have said, CR will also have to provide all the evidence to the courts to prove the statements made were false and defamatory (including, more than likely, spending reports and email correspondence within the company).
EDIT- I should also add that the Escapist's law team might seek to prove CR is a limited-purpose public figure in the realm of gaming and this controversy. If that is proven, CIG will actually have to prove actual malice in the case, a higher standard than negligence.
To which I'll say, be careful what you ask for, sometimes you'll get exactly that.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
We spent 'x' on payroll, We spent 'x' on equipment, We spent 'x' on office space, We spent 'x' on voice acting, We spent 'x' on motion capture, My wife and I are paying ourselves 'x' amount per year to create this game.
Sure, there will be new bitching in the form of "Why did you guys spend so much money on that?" and "I didn't crowdfund this game so you can make a million per year salary!", but no one will be able to say that the game isn't being produced. No one will be able to call it vaporware.
That's really all that I think the backers are hanging for anyways. They are not really asking for a full release game now, just something that is at least more integrated and closer to a full set of gameplay than hanger + arena commander (which is basically not a game atm - it is more like testing engines than anything else with only those 2 components).
Who's backing Dsmart? I think most are holding this whole situation very suspect. I honestly don't think Dsmart has anything to do with it. Other than he injected himself into the controversy here. At 90 million if Star Citizen is doing as poorly as some is suggesting, the whole thing is going to come out anyways.
Maybe you can get a few million and tank the project laughing your way to the bank. But 90 million? nah. If the article that Escapist put out has a shred of truth in it, the game is done. And that's why all the fans are freaking out right now.
We'll see.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I have said this many times before: There is no good reason not to disclose your financials like every other publicly listed company in the world does. If you have nothing to hide then this will only help your Company.
If the company as a whole is healthy then it does not matter how much they spend or what the line items say. In fact, if the books are in order the press will surely praise the project to the crowdfunding heavens. They will fuel the hype train an make it go so fast your heads will spin.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬