It is 100% art from another game until you can proof it otherwise.
It is 100 % from Framestore until you can proof it otherwise.
And anyone can pay Framestore for the rights to these images.
Have fun
Wait a minute ...
CCP outsourced another company to do their art. This company is selling now the art to other people. CCP is ok with their stuff they payed for is sold to a competitor. CIG actually bought nebula stuff from a 3rd Party Contractor (Framestore is not a picture stock website, they are contractors) that coincedently is in the live version of Eve Online. So Framework is the Bad guy because they are selling individually generated artwork to other companies.
I need a few good nebulas for my game can you please sent me the FrameWork website where I can browse through and buy them.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it. The cake is a lie.
If this was not a big deal why do you think CIG were very quick in removing all examples of this last time?
Because the last time, it was on actual marketing material, material they CHARGE for, the Jumppoint magazine thing the subscribers get.
Now pictures released, either on the website or by the artists themselves of their work have nothing to do with that.
Putting it in a video which is then released to the public via their youtube channel is no different to putting it in a lore piece that is on the website.... it is still advertising material, <insert condescending expletive here>
Putting it in a video which is then released to the public via their youtube channel is no different to putting it in a lore piece that is on the website.... it is still advertising material, <insert condescending expletive here>
By stretching it. And again this happens often enough where there is no ability to even get any legal action going, because it is the work of one artist that ends up not have been properly vetted.
But this time it was marketing material to make money sent out to all people that are accepting the newsletter.
On the reality of the newsletter it is not implied, art as this to appear on a trailer for the game, as it did happen with Uncharted 4, that yes.
And what did the publisher do?
Sony took down the trailer this afternoon and replaced it with a new version of the video that features a difference piece of framed artwork. Naughty Dog, in a post on its website, owned up to stealing the artwork and apologized for having done so.
And this was just a framed picture shown for astounding 0.5s at timemark 1:43 in the video.
And what should CIG do now? Recalling of 1.000.000 emails is not possible ....
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it. The cake is a lie.
And what should CIG do now? Recalling of 1.000.000 emails is not possible ....
They do nothing. The case of Naughty dog could lead to legal action, or a takedown by Ubisoft's part because it was one official trailer that is plainly one advertisement.
Concept artists on companies at times need to deliver the art within the same day, or even hours after it is requested, hence why they just use existent assets from several places to get it done as we see on this case.
However, the separation between "finished and production-ready art" (for marketing) and "a sketch the artist made in a few hours to further an idea" tends to be non-existent in most studios.
Putting it in a video which is then released to the public via their youtube channel is no different to putting it in a lore piece that is on the website.... it is still advertising material, <insert condescending expletive here>
By stretching it.
No stretching by any imagination unless you're purposely looking to make something appear trivial.
...because it is the work of one artist that ends up not have been properly vetted.
Which brings us all the way back to my earlier comment where I said that is was laziness, incompetence or hubris. What does it show apart from the fact that they do not learn from their mistakes?
Any other company that cares about its public image would put checks in place to avoid this sort of crap from being repeated. CIG either doesn't know, doesn't care to know or even worse has your viewpoint where they believe it doesn't even matter.
What does it show apart from the fact that they do not learn from their mistakes?
Any other company that cares about its public image would put checks in place to avoid this sort of crap from being repeated. CIG either doesn't know, doesn't care to know or even worse has your viewpoint where they believe it doesn't even matter.
Well I think you care more about this than CPP itself that had its asset copied.
They show simply they do not put time into vetoing art that may be released to the public and just release pieces of what they artists do without checking it further, what admittedly is not one easy process.
What does it show apart from the fact that they do not learn from their mistakes?
Any other company that cares about its public image would put checks in place to avoid this sort of crap from being repeated. CIG either doesn't know, doesn't care to know or even worse has your viewpoint where they believe it doesn't even matter.
Well I think you care more about this than CPP itself that had its asset copied.
They show simply they do not put time into vetoing art that may be released to the public and just release pieces of what they artists do without checking it further, what admittedly that is not one easy process.
I care because they should care. I think it's wrong but more importantly I think it tarnishes their public image and that's one thing companies go out of their way to manage. It just looks lazy, it just looks incompetent, it just looks like they don't give a damn and that's hardly what you want to be portraying.
And all they need is a rule in place saying that if assets are used that have been sourced externally then the artwork must be labelled for "internal use only". Not a difficult process. Everyone one else manages it bar the bungling keystone kops at CIG.
And all they need is a rule in place saying that if assets are used that have been sourced externally then the artwork must be labelled for "internal use only". Not a difficult process. Everyone one else manages it bar the bungling keystone kops at CIG.
They do show a lot of concept art due the nature of the communication on how we see things from concept to final asset, what only increases the likeness of things as this to happen.
I'm seeing you're not even considering that.
They should focus on vetoing the translation of the concept to asset production, as per norm, that is where the real issue can happen.
And all they need is a rule in place saying that if assets are used that have been sourced externally then the artwork must be labelled for "internal use only". Not a difficult process. Everyone one else manages it bar the bungling keystone kops at CIG.
They do show a lot of concept art due the nature of the communication on how we see things from concept to final asset, what only increases the likeness of things as this to happen.
I'm seeing you're not even considering that.
They should focus on vetoing the translation of the concept to asset production, as per norm, that is where the real issue can happen.
I like that you tell me what I'm not considering when I'm saying that other companies don't fall into this mess while also showing a decent amount of concept art.
They just need to be more stringent about this. It's not like they haven't had time or examples to learn from...
I like that you tell me what I'm not considering when I'm saying that other companies don't fall into this mess while also showing a decent amount of concept art.
Well that may also be because nobody microscopically examines those companies concept art as they do with everything SC related now won't it? Every little thing that can be used against the company will be, the amount of effort put on investigate even their office furniture or even the clothes they wear is impressive.
So you can easily reach the conclusion that SC is under a scrutiny level by people who dig on everything trying to find stuff to publicly "mud-sling" back at the company, is not the same reality you find within the majority of other games (if any).
I like that you tell me what I'm not considering when I'm saying that other companies don't fall into this mess while also showing a decent amount of concept art.
Well that may also be because nobody microscopically examines those companies concept art as they do with everything SC related now won't it? Every little thing that can be used against the company will be, the amount of effort put on investigate even their office furniture or even the clothes they wear is impressive.
So you can easily reach the conclusion that SC is under a scrutiny level by people who dig on everything trying to find stuff to publicly "mud-sling" back at the company, is not the same reality you find within the majority of other games.
Why shouldn't all of their work be under the microscope of scrutiny? This game uses other people's money to fund it so it should be held to a higher standard.
Besides this isn't the first time CIG has been caught doing this. If this was the first time you could chalk it up to not being stringent enough but there are multiple examples so at this point I don't think they even care anymore.
Why shouldn't all of their work be under the microscope of scrutiny? This game uses other people's money to fund it so it should be held to a higher standard.
I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying that when someone wonders why there is so much drama and this type of mess surrounding this project, that ties back to a number of people who purposely are looking to cause such.
You can bet that any piece of art CIG or its artist's release will have people purposely searching it around trying to find anything that might be copied or resembling something that already exists. A level of scrutiny you do not find anywhere else; hence why any flaw on their side, even if it requires a storm on a cup of tea, will become a mess.
Why shouldn't all of their work be under the microscope of scrutiny? This game uses other people's money to fund it so it should be held to a higher standard.
I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying that when someone wonders why there is so much drama and this type of mess surrounding this project, that ties back to a number of people who purposely are looking for such.
You can bet that any piece of art CIG or its artists release will have people purposely searching it around trying to find anything that might be copied or resembling something that already exists.
A level of scrutiny you do not find anywhere else; hence why any flaw on their side, even if it requires a storm on a cup of tea, will become a mess.
I'm sure the same level of scrutiny is applied by any publisher developed game but you just don't hear about it and there aren't as many people looking at the time.
Besides i I doubt the theft of another games in game asset would hardly qualify as storm in a teacup
I'm sure the same level of scrutiny is applied by any publisher developed game but you just don't hear about it
Oh that's such a ridiculous statement.
In what other game, will people dig up all the furniture of their offices? Or will dig up the clothes they wear? On what other game, even media does investigations of many months upon the project? On what other game there has been people who hired Private Investigators to look up any "dirt" on the company?
There's simply no other like SC on this. There's a bunch of people who are dedicated into finding anything to mud-sling publicly back at the company.
I'm sure the same level of scrutiny is applied by any publisher developed game but you just don't hear about it
Oh that's such a ridiculous statement.
In what other game, will people dig up all the furniture of their offices? Or will dig up the clothes they wear? On what other game, even media does investigations of many months upon the project? On what other game there has been people who hired Private Investigators to look up any "dirt" on the company?
There's simply no other like SC on this.
Show me another brand new studio who decided to build 4 offices and fully trick out said offices with backer money. You show me that and I'm sure you will find another level of scrutiny like CIG.
Hell look at greed monger. That game was under a microscopic level of scrutiny once the community got wind that something was up
Show me another brand new studio who decided to build 4 offices and fully trick out said offices with backer money. You show me that and I'm sure you will find another level of scrutiny like CIG.
Oh! So don't you come with the "same level of scrutiny" as other games. Because that is pure BS.
SC is one unique case due its crowdfunding nature, because of the scale of the project. That together with the people dedicated to create drama mega-storms out of anything... hello!
Show me another brand new studio who decided to build 4 offices and fully trick out said offices with backer money. You show me that and I'm sure you will find another level of scrutiny like CIG.
Oh! So don't you come with the "same level of scrutiny" as other games. Because that is pure BS.
SC is one unique case due its crowdfunding nature, because of the scale of the project. That together with the people dedicated to create drama mega-storms out of anything... hello!
SC isn't a unique case. Greed Monger and Pathfinder Online are other cases where they came under intense scrutiny. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of games and other ideas that have this same level of scrutiny as well.
Oh... really? So I can assume on those games people also took the scrutiny level to the EMOTIONS of the developers?
Because that's the Star Citizen level, people who go and analyze the emotions the developers who on the live streams and other video content they do.
Are you really moving the goalposts now? You asked what other project do people dig up dirt or look at what they wear etc and I give examples but now you move the goalposts to include emotions?
Sorry if you're going to keep moving the goalposts then I'm done with this specific discussion
Comments
CCP outsourced another company to do their art.
This company is selling now the art to other people.
CCP is ok with their stuff they payed for is sold to a competitor.
CIG actually bought nebula stuff from a 3rd Party Contractor (Framestore is not a picture stock website, they are contractors) that coincedently is in the live version of Eve Online.
So Framework is the Bad guy because they are selling individually generated artwork to other companies.
I need a few good nebulas for my game can you please sent me the FrameWork website where I can browse through and buy them.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
That was the only case the art was borderline because when you pay for something where art was copied from others, that's where it is one issue.
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
Putting it in a video which is then released to the public via their youtube channel is no different to putting it in a lore piece that is on the website.... it is still advertising material, <insert condescending expletive here>
Sony took down the trailer this afternoon and replaced it with a new version of the video that features a difference piece of framed artwork. Naughty Dog, in a post on its website, owned up to stealing the artwork and apologized for having done so.
And what should CIG do now? Recalling of 1.000.000 emails is not possible ....
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
Concept artists on companies at times need to deliver the art within the same day, or even hours after it is requested, hence why they just use existent assets from several places to get it done as we see on this case.
However, the separation between "finished and production-ready art" (for marketing) and "a sketch the artist made in a few hours to further an idea" tends to be non-existent in most studios.
No stretching by any imagination unless you're purposely looking to make something appear trivial.
Which brings us all the way back to my earlier comment where I said that is was laziness, incompetence or hubris.
What does it show apart from the fact that they do not learn from their mistakes?
Any other company that cares about its public image would put checks in place to avoid this sort of crap from being repeated. CIG either doesn't know, doesn't care to know or even worse has your viewpoint where they believe it doesn't even matter.
They show simply they do not put time into vetoing art that may be released to the public and just release pieces of what they artists do without checking it further, what admittedly is not one easy process.
I care because they should care. I think it's wrong but more importantly I think it tarnishes their public image and that's one thing companies go out of their way to manage. It just looks lazy, it just looks incompetent, it just looks like they don't give a damn and that's hardly what you want to be portraying.
And all they need is a rule in place saying that if assets are used that have been sourced externally then the artwork must be labelled for "internal use only". Not a difficult process.
Everyone one else manages it bar the bungling keystone kops at CIG.
I'm seeing you're not even considering that.
They should focus on vetoing the translation of the concept to asset production, as per norm, that is where the real issue can happen.
I like that you tell me what I'm not considering when I'm saying that other companies don't fall into this mess while also showing a decent amount of concept art.
They just need to be more stringent about this. It's not like they haven't had time or examples to learn from...
So you can easily reach the conclusion that SC is under a scrutiny level by people who dig on everything trying to find stuff to publicly "mud-sling" back at the company, is not the same reality you find within the majority of other games (if any).
Besides this isn't the first time CIG has been caught doing this. If this was the first time you could chalk it up to not being stringent enough but there are multiple examples so at this point I don't think they even care anymore.
You can bet that any piece of art CIG or its artist's release will have people purposely searching it around trying to find anything that might be copied or resembling something that already exists. A level of scrutiny you do not find anywhere else; hence why any flaw on their side, even if it requires a storm on a cup of tea, will become a mess.
Besides i I doubt the theft of another games in game asset would hardly qualify as storm in a teacup
In what other game, will people dig up all the furniture of their offices? Or will dig up the clothes they wear? On what other game, even media does investigations of many months upon the project? On what other game there has been people who hired Private Investigators to look up any "dirt" on the company?
There's simply no other like SC on this. There's a bunch of people who are dedicated into finding anything to mud-sling publicly back at the company.
Hell look at greed monger. That game was under a microscopic level of scrutiny once the community got wind that something was up
SC is one unique case due its crowdfunding nature, because of the scale of the project. That together with the people dedicated to create drama mega-storms out of anything... hello!
So I can assume on those games people also took the scrutiny level to the EMOTIONS of the developers?
Because that's the Star Citizen level, people who go and analyze the emotions the developers on the live streams and other video content they do.
Personally, I never, ever, saw on any other game with people scrutinizing the emotions the developers shown during videos/livestreams.
Sorry if you're going to keep moving the goalposts then I'm done with this specific discussion