>>> I should end now before it became a Bible. >>>
You are quoting the old obsolete Kickstarter text ... AGAIN ....
and I answer AGAIN .... "A lot has changed, the project has been completely revamped and enlarged ... and the backers have been informed about it every step of the way (if they want to hear...) .. the old statements and the old timetable are no longer accurate and everyone who can read knows it"
and i tell you AGAIN ... if you think CIG is breaking any laws .. SUE THEM !
How does this help anything though? If CIG is going to fail then let them fail on their own. You introduce the FTC and all of a sudden they have an excuse not to deliver. That's the last thing I want to see. Let them either deliver or fail, either way it will be glorious.
It's not just them and their fans that will suffer if such fail happening.
With better attitude of the devs, they assuming their legal responsibilities when advertising, and they paying when failing to, called attention, getting bad press, etc., the crowd-funding actually can become a much more reliable and two-way street road for both customers and developers.
FTC would never "give them an excuse to not deliver". They just would give an alert and if CIG do not assume their legal responsibility and persist, well, here FTC will act and will save many people of losing money, as well as will give to people, a little more trust that they can actually have someone looking to their rights and to the legal responsibilities of developers, when crowd-funding.
>>> I should end now before it became a Bible. >>>
You are quoting the old obsolete Kickstarter text ... AGAIN ....
and I answer AGAIN .... "A lot has changed, the project has been completely revamped and enlarged ... and the backers have been informed about it every step of the way (if they want to hear...) .. the old statements and the old timetable are no longer accurate and everyone who can read knows it"
and i tell you AGAIN ... if you think CIG is breaking any laws .. SUE THEM !
Have fun
"The purpose of the higher stretch goals is to ensure that the game-as-described is finished in the two year time period."
Half-brain and you can understand what the statement above means. In other words, the entire core of the game of the pitch (Star Citizen Persistent Universe, Squadron 42) should be in your hands now. Are they? Are they coming in any time soon? We are 8 months delayed and counting.
What about the Alpha? Never came so far. It says that you could fly in 12 months in, with the ship that you pledged for. I am pretty sure that people who pledged for a Constellation are yet not flying with this ship, and probably won't in 36 months.
And the Beta... where you could adventure yourself in a huge open galaxy, has been 1 year delayed.
You say... "a lot has changed", but, for all these changes, Roberts repeated again and again in many letters that they wouldn't impact in the release date of the core of the game, that they were not feature creep. The material to show this is rich and public record.
Those Roberts statements are both from the earlier days of Kickstarter and later events. And if you dig more, you will find similar things happening even along this year. Like telling that the FPS module would come soon after Pax East, and presenting as the excuses for the delays, basically the same similar excuses that he presented to the DFM delay.
The fact that they brought excuses, generally is not enough to defend them against an unfair/deceptive marketing claim. His defense case is a lost one, considering that he repeated that again, again and again, and been a 20-year old veteran of the game industry, he can't claim that does not know how to estimate a game, both in short and long term estimates, mainly when having a lesson learned in the own project, or even alpha modules (never required to be polished, but functional, and if you hold because are making it more fancy visually, you are not interested to deliver, you are interested to sell more).
Anyway, It's not me "thinking". They broke the law. It's Federal Trade Comission who says that, by definition of the own law, not me. Again, it's just a matter of people act.
FTC needs complaints to act.
Gamers doesn't have this habit, they just became disappointed and move on, in general. That's why developers are been irresponsible. But if gamers start to act, this scenario can change with government authorities helping, giving constant reminds to devs, and good examples of penalties in case they persist on mistake, and the crowd-funding can still have some hope in its future/maintenance and grow.
That's what Derek is asking/suggesting. I agree with him. But for me to open an individual lawsuit against them, as you suggested, even that the set of proves of their unfair/deceptive attitude are huge, that would require a lot of monetary/time effort from my side, because we are separated (I and CIG) for a big ocean. So, what people in the same situation can do only, probably, is to try FTC.
Thanks for the suggestion by the way. I would give the same suggestion for those who live in United States, in case they also agree that what CIG made is unfair business with customers and is bringing a negative impact for the future of the Space Sim genre and crowd-funding.
How does this help anything though? If CIG is going to fail then let them fail on their own. You introduce the FTC and all of a sudden they have an excuse not to deliver. That's the last thing I want to see. Let them either deliver or fail, either way it will be glorious.
It's not just them and their fans that will suffer if such fail happening.
With better attitude of the devs, they assuming their legal responsibilities when advertising, and they paying when failing to, called attention, getting bad press, etc., the crowd-funding actually can become a much more reliable and two-way street road for both customers and developers.
FTC would never "give them an excuse to not deliver". They just would give an alert and if CIG do not assume their legal responsibility and persist, well, here FTC will act and will save many people of losing money, as well as will give to people, a little more trust that they can actually have someone looking to their rights and to the legal responsibilities of developers, when crowd-funding.
CIG is already persisting. Have you even read the website? The REALITY of the situation is that they actually communicate more frequently with their community than the majority of game companies out there. They certainly aren't quiet.
Crowd funding doesn't need CIG to be held accountable to help prove it is a way to successfully fund a game. As it is right now, the percentage of successfully-funded games which are being delivered year-over-year is actually increasing, meaning that crowdfunding is already showing that it is a viable means of funding a game. People like YOU and people like Derek Smart do nothing be set that process back. Why? Well, we've proven that indie games can actually deliver through crowdfunding. We've proven that some larger-scale games can be delivered through the platform. What has NOT been proven is whether or not a true AAA-budget game can be delivered through the platform. SC COULD be the most ambitious project that's ever been taken on (up for debate, but it's certainly massive in scale). So if fans would like to be a part of history, then throw your money at it. If you don't then keep your money in your pocket. You talk about white knights, etc. in your posts, but you're the complete opposite. You're the Black Knight, trying to rally support for negativity and somehow hampering the ability to put this game out.
The scope of this game is simply daunting, I would agree with that. However, the plan of attack isn't undisciplined at all. It's completely modular and they are releasing modules as they become available. There doesn't seem to be any deviation from that. Behind Schedule? IDK. Back on December 6th, 2013 Roberts was quoted as saying "So, the module we are planning to do right after dogfighting is the Planetside module". The Arena Commander is already out. Then, June 14th, 2014 he was quoted as saying "Next year we’re going to be showing the planetside stuff." and back in 2013, his vision was similarly concise during an interview when he was quoted as saying, "And then after [the planetside module] we're gonna have the first-person shooter ship boarding module where they can fight against other people on their ship. And then an alpha of the single-player story Squadron 42. And then finally an alpha of Star Citizen, which is a full sandbox universe that involves all these modules." That's the schedule. Period. So the game itself hasn't deviated from it's plan at all?
What would make this better? To say it's "Early Access"? Obviously that's the excuse that Derek thinks is acceptable ground for release garbage (see Line of Defence) Does the fact that SC is a competitive product give Derek credibility or hurt his credibility? Does the fact that Derek wants you to pay for Early Access at multiple tiers (*cough* SHIPS *cough*) somehow make him any different? Does the fact that Derek has so many issues delivering quality product in his own right give him any credibility to criticize the scope of a project? No, not really. IMO, if anyone wants to complain to the FTC they should be calling about Line of Defence because it's utter trash and looks like people have played it, on average, for a combined total of less than an hour. I've taken shits longer than most people have been able to stomach playing his games.
CIG is already persisting. Have you even read the website? The REALITY of the situation is that they actually communicate more frequently with their community than the majority of game companies out there. They certainly aren't quiet.
They are obligated to. They promised to do that. Even put that as a stretch goal. Other companies are not worried to sell you expensive ships, so, they don't need to give you reasons to going there in a daily basis and looking to their offers. They are also a little less naive in terms of competiton when you reveal too many things earlier that you are not even near of having an idea in how or when can implement them. Only a person focused on cash grabbing, quick-easy money would do that, not really worried with the future of the venture.
Crowd funding doesn't need CIG to be held accountable to help prove it is a way to successfully fund a game. As it is right now, the percentage of successfully-funded games which are being delivered year-over-year is actually increasing, meaning that crowdfunding is already showing that it is a viable means of funding a game.
I am sorry but this is not true. All Space Sims that came failed on Kickstarter were barely achieved funds, since the existence of Star Citizen show of promissing things that they have no idea when or how to implement.
People like YOU and people like Derek Smart do nothing be set that process back. Why? Well, we've proven that indie games can actually deliver through crowdfunding. We've proven that some larger-scale games can be delivered through the platform. What has NOT been proven is whether or not a true AAA-budget game can be delivered through the platform. SC COULD be the most ambitious project that's ever been taken on (up for debate, but it's certainly massive in scale). So if fans would like to be a part of history, then throw your money at it. If you don't then keep your money in your pocket. You talk about white knights, etc. in your posts, but you're the complete opposite. You're the Black Knight, trying to rally support for negativity and somehow hampering the ability to put this game out.
You don't need to be a fan to be backer of a project. Go figure. You can be just a customer as anyone else. Majorities are actually non-fans. SC is ambitious? Just as Elite Dangerous is.
The scope of this game is simply daunting, I would agree with that. However, the plan of attack isn't undisciplined at all. It's completely modular and they are releasing modules as they become available. There doesn't seem to be any deviation from that. Behind Schedule? IDK. Back on December 6th, 2013 Roberts was quoted as saying "So, the module we are planning to do right after dogfighting is the Planetside module". The Arena Commander is already out. Then, June 14th, 2014 he was quoted as saying "Next year we’re going to be showing the planetside stuff." and back in 2013, his vision was similarly concise during an interview when he was quoted as saying, "And then after [the planetside module] we're gonna have the first-person shooter ship boarding module where they can fight against other people on their ship. And then an alpha of the single-player story Squadron 42. And then finally an alpha of Star Citizen, which is a full sandbox universe that involves all these modules." That's the schedule. Period. So the game itself hasn't deviated from it's plan at all?
You realize that "isn't undisciplined at all" does not fit with anything in this project. Raising a scope of a project is to be undisciplined. Mainly when you got money from people already. Again, what you and Roberts fail to see is... not everyone is a fanatic. Minorities are.
What would make this better? To say it's "Early Access"?
Elite Dangerous is the lesson learned that Roberts should take.
Obviously that's the excuse that Derek thinks is acceptable ground for release garbage (see Line of Defence) Does the fact that SC is a competitive product give Derek credibility or hurt his credibility? Does the fact that Derek wants you to pay for Early Access at multiple tiers (*cough* SHIPS *cough*) somehow make him any different? Does the fact that Derek has so many issues delivering quality product in his own right give him any credibility to criticize the scope of a project? No, not really. IMO, if anyone wants to complain to the FTC they should be calling about Line of Defence because it's utter trash and looks like people have played it, on average, for a combined total of less than an hour. I've taken shits longer than most people have been able to stomach playing his games.
If you gave money to Derek and he did not accomplish with a promise made that was what make you "pledge" or whatever, you have the right of a refund. It's the law. If you want to open a complaint on FTC, I say, he would deserve, again, if he did not deliver something that he actually advertised, without making clear about issues that could happen.
You know what would be hilarious? If Chris got his game launched and included a free ship called the D-Smart that was a rust bucket, smoked like crazy, had random parts flying off it all the time and could only fly for 13 seconds before needing to charge its batteries for an hour.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
"To the rest of you, I only have this to say: stop buying virtual items for a goddamn game you don’t have. What in the holy phuck is the matter with you?!? You know how many indie games you could’ve bought and supported and been PLAYING by now?!?"
Originally posted by Talonsin You know what would be hilarious? If Chris got his game launched and included a free ship called the D-Smart that was a rust bucket, smoked like crazy, had random parts flying off it all the time and could only fly for 13 seconds before needing to charge its batteries for an hour.
I buy the JPEG for 15k. Tell me where is it in the Ship Store.
Originally posted by Talonsin You know what would be hilarious? If Chris got his game launched and included a free ship called the D-Smart that was a rust bucket, smoked like crazy, had random parts flying off it all the time and could only fly for 13 seconds before needing to charge its batteries for an hour.
If he'll do that for every person who's questioned SC, he's going to need a lot of crappy ships in his game.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
.. and in a long and very interesting article posted by him, he says that Star Citizen as has been pitched (larger scope than the original) will never come out, unless they start to cut things, and, at the same time, such thing happening is also a certainty of a catastrophy, due the constant glorious anti-establishment speech of Roberts plus his marketing approach, a continuous reminder to the world of cash grabbing that never ends, associated with lack of practical results.
[..]
UPDATE July 6th: Derek moved the article to this link:
I started reading it, jumped over his own-history blurb as I wasn't interested in this but wanted his opinion on Star Citizen - despite having zero interest in this kind of game. But I've heard about the sums being poured into it and have seen MMO's hyped and not even make it to the market or the incredible soap operas surrounding some.
What made me stop read the "this is why it will fail" part was the claim that CryEngine 3 can't support anything persistent, large, physics-based which is seamless and has 3D flight. Why? Because even though I've not become a big fan of it, I've played ArcheAge. Which is ... persistent, large, physics-based, seamless and has 3D flight. I can list Wikipedia too and ignoring what doesn't fit the tone of my rants.
Even Civilization Online will run on CryEngine 3, Wander does (though I heard bad stuff about it in terms of performance/bugs). Cabal 2 is a MMO on CryEngine 3 as well and released. But yes, ArcheAge I think is the most technically advanced.
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ... Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2 Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
.. and in a long and very interesting article posted by him, he says that Star Citizen as has been pitched (larger scope than the original) will never come out, unless they start to cut things, and, at the same time, such thing happening is also a certainty of a catastrophy, due the constant glorious anti-establishment speech of Roberts plus his marketing approach, a continuous reminder to the world of cash grabbing that never ends, associated with lack of practical results.
[..]
UPDATE July 6th: Derek moved the article to this link:
I started reading it, jumped over his own-history blurb as I wasn't interested in this but wanted his opinion on Star Citizen - despite having zero interest in this kind of game. But I've heard about the sums being poured into it and have seen MMO's hyped and not even make it to the market or the incredible soap operas surrounding some.
What made me stop read the "this is why it will fail" part was the claim that CryEngine 3 can't support anything persistent, large, physics-based which is seamless and has 3D flight. Why? Because even though I've not become a big fan of it, I've played ArcheAge. Which is ... persistent, large, physics-based, seamless and has 3D flight. I can list Wikipedia too and ignoring what doesn't fit the tone of my rants.
Even Civilization Online will run on CryEngine 3, Wander does (though I heard bad stuff about it in terms of performance/bugs). Cabal 2 is a MMO on CryEngine 3 as well and released. But yes, ArcheAge I think is the most technically advanced.
There is a huge (seriously huge) difference between the Archeage/Cabel level of fidelity / world + multiplayer and the proposed Star Citizen level of fidelity / world + multiplayer. IF you know what they are saying that will implement (Actually DS told in his article) you would have your answer of why it will never move forward unless made with an engine built from scratch for it. I really doubt that Archeage and CAbal are so massive as games of the kind of Star Citizen or Elite: Dangerous.
For example, we know for sure that SC won't have seamless transictions, for example. The engine can't handle that in the level of fidelity that they are trying to. But they forgot to mention about the own space battles... in multiplayer, of how possibly they will handle capital ship battles + fighters + multiplayer + high level of fidelity and exteriors/interiors, with seamless boarding, etc.
See?
Impossible. And what is more fun about it, is that they sell those capital ship playable, for thousands of dollars each and have been even increasing their models and details, clearly only focusing on Squadron 42, because will be a single-player experience (And they won't be playable).
The problem starts when they start to think to put that and make that a reality in the PU, where will be the place that those will be actually playable for those people who paid 2500 dollars for each one of them.
Elite could be possible (what they are targetting to). They are not going so deep in "tiny little things" in their models, and the guys actually have a proper engine to advance with their game and create seamless transictions and huge things/maps, etc. They kind of know better how to balance visuals and gameplay and have a proper engine to handle it. Not the case of Star Citizen.
What the hell does Derek Smart know about making space sims? As he has proven over and over, absolutely nothing. Having said that, I won't be dropping a cent into this monster until it proves itself a crap load more than it has.
.. and in a long and very interesting article posted by him, he says that Star Citizen as has been pitched (larger scope than the original) will never come out, unless they start to cut things, and, at the same time, such thing happening is also a certainty of a catastrophy, due the constant glorious anti-establishment speech of Roberts plus his marketing approach, a continuous reminder to the world of cash grabbing that never ends, associated with lack of practical results.
[..]
UPDATE July 6th: Derek moved the article to this link:
I started reading it, jumped over his own-history blurb as I wasn't interested in this but wanted his opinion on Star Citizen - despite having zero interest in this kind of game. But I've heard about the sums being poured into it and have seen MMO's hyped and not even make it to the market or the incredible soap operas surrounding some.
What made me stop read the "this is why it will fail" part was the claim that CryEngine 3 can't support anything persistent, large, physics-based which is seamless and has 3D flight. Why? Because even though I've not become a big fan of it, I've played ArcheAge. Which is ... persistent, large, physics-based, seamless and has 3D flight. I can list Wikipedia too and ignoring what doesn't fit the tone of my rants.
Even Civilization Online will run on CryEngine 3, Wander does (though I heard bad stuff about it in terms of performance/bugs). Cabal 2 is a MMO on CryEngine 3 as well and released. But yes, ArcheAge I think is the most technically advanced.
There is a huge (seriously huge) difference between the Archeage/Cabel level of fidelity / world + multiplayer and the proposed Star Citizen level of fidelity / world + multiplayer. IF you know what they are saying that will implement (Actually DS told in his article) you would have your answer of why it will never move forward unless made with an engine built from scratch for it. I really doubt that Archeage and CAbal are so massive as games of the kind of Star Citizen or Elite: Dangerous.
For example, we know for sure that SC won't have seamless transictions, for example. The engine can't handle that in the level of fidelity that they are trying to. But they forgot to mention about the own space battles... in multiplayer, of how possibly they will handle capital ship battles + fighters + multiplayer + high level of fidelity and exteriors/interiors, with seamless boarding, etc.
See?
Impossible. And what is more fun about it, is that they sell those capital ship playable, for thousands of dollars each and have been even increasing their models and details, clearly only focusing on Squadron 42, because will be a single-player experience (And they won't be playable).
The problem starts when they start to think to put that and make that a reality in the PU, where will be the place that those will be actually playable for those people who paid 2500 dollars for each one of them.
Elite could be possible (what they are targetting to). They are not going so deep in "tiny little things" in their models, and the guys actually have a proper engine to advance with their game and create seamless transictions and huge things/maps, etc. They kind of know better how to balance visuals and gameplay and have a proper engine to handle it. Not the case of Star Citizen.
I'm not familiar with the term "fidelity", but I'm startled by a claim of "capital ships in space won't work and seamless down to planet in connection won't either". Why? A huge ship is still just a single entity in an empty space while some land-battle with tons of player avatars eat much higher performance usually due to details. There is large PvP in ArcheAge and it is smooth, I've been there, 50 or so people at least visible, high definition, was running smooth even on my rather ancient PC.
What does it matter if someone has such a huge ship and people inside? You don't need to visualize these, you don't need to connect their movement etc, only their direct impact on ship-space interaction needs to be communicated. For all its worth the ship is a simple instance otherwise and the people can do whatever they do in unrelated simulations?
I found the article bloated and unconvincing, throwing around claims but little numbers or actual hard tech. He basically says "It can't be done, because we could not!" and then quotes Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I'm very skeptical about newbies in the genre pulling off anything larger than a single player game, I've a tiny bit of background of "trying to do a MMO" with an Indie group too - turned quickly a nightmare technically wise back then and we dropped the idea for sheer lack of feasibility. So he preaches to the converted with this statement. But besides that ... the article is not convincing for specific claims to me.
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ... Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2 Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
CIG is already persisting. Have you even read the website? The REALITY of the situation is that they actually communicate more frequently with their community than the majority of game companies out there. They certainly aren't quiet.
They are obligated to. They promised to do that. Even put that as a stretch goal. Other companies are not worried to sell you expensive ships, so, they don't need to give you reasons to going there in a daily basis and looking to their offers. They are also a little less naive in terms of competiton when you reveal too many things earlier that you are not even near of having an idea in how or when can implement them. Only a person focused on cash grabbing, quick-easy money would do that, not really worried with the future of the venture.
Crowd funding doesn't need CIG to be held accountable to help prove it is a way to successfully fund a game. As it is right now, the percentage of successfully-funded games which are being delivered year-over-year is actually increasing, meaning that crowdfunding is already showing that it is a viable means of funding a game.
I am sorry but this is not true. All Space Sims that came failed on Kickstarter were barely achieved funds, since the existence of Star Citizen show of promissing things that they have no idea when or how to implement.
People like YOU and people like Derek Smart do nothing be set that process back. Why? Well, we've proven that indie games can actually deliver through crowdfunding. We've proven that some larger-scale games can be delivered through the platform. What has NOT been proven is whether or not a true AAA-budget game can be delivered through the platform. SC COULD be the most ambitious project that's ever been taken on (up for debate, but it's certainly massive in scale). So if fans would like to be a part of history, then throw your money at it. If you don't then keep your money in your pocket. You talk about white knights, etc. in your posts, but you're the complete opposite. You're the Black Knight, trying to rally support for negativity and somehow hampering the ability to put this game out.
You don't need to be a fan to be backer of a project. Go figure. You can be just a customer as anyone else. Majorities are actually non-fans. SC is ambitious? Just as Elite Dangerous is.
The scope of this game is simply daunting, I would agree with that. However, the plan of attack isn't undisciplined at all. It's completely modular and they are releasing modules as they become available. There doesn't seem to be any deviation from that. Behind Schedule? IDK. Back on December 6th, 2013 Roberts was quoted as saying "So, the module we are planning to do right after dogfighting is the Planetside module". The Arena Commander is already out. Then, June 14th, 2014 he was quoted as saying "Next year we’re going to be showing the planetside stuff." and back in 2013, his vision was similarly concise during an interview when he was quoted as saying, "And then after [the planetside module] we're gonna have the first-person shooter ship boarding module where they can fight against other people on their ship. And then an alpha of the single-player story Squadron 42. And then finally an alpha of Star Citizen, which is a full sandbox universe that involves all these modules." That's the schedule. Period. So the game itself hasn't deviated from it's plan at all?
You realize that "isn't undisciplined at all" does not fit with anything in this project. Raising a scope of a project is to be undisciplined. Mainly when you got money from people already. Again, what you and Roberts fail to see is... not everyone is a fanatic. Minorities are.
What would make this better? To say it's "Early Access"?
Elite Dangerous is the lesson learned that Roberts should take.
Obviously that's the excuse that Derek thinks is acceptable ground for release garbage (see Line of Defence) Does the fact that SC is a competitive product give Derek credibility or hurt his credibility? Does the fact that Derek wants you to pay for Early Access at multiple tiers (*cough* SHIPS *cough*) somehow make him any different? Does the fact that Derek has so many issues delivering quality product in his own right give him any credibility to criticize the scope of a project? No, not really. IMO, if anyone wants to complain to the FTC they should be calling about Line of Defence because it's utter trash and looks like people have played it, on average, for a combined total of less than an hour. I've taken shits longer than most people have been able to stomach playing his games.
If you gave money to Derek and he did not accomplish with a promise made that was what make you "pledge" or whatever, you have the right of a refund. It's the law. If you want to open a complaint on FTC, I say, he would deserve, again, if he did not deliver something that he actually advertised, without making clear about issues that could happen.
First of all, do you have proof that Chris Roberts has no idea how to implement these ideas? Saying that Chris Roberts doesn't know how to implement a space sim is like saying Lebron James doesn't know how to dunk a basketball. He's done it plenty of times. Additionally, this vision is nothing new, he actually had an opportunity to implement these types of features YEARS ago in Freelancer, but it was under a publisher, so it was the typical "ship it" mentality. This is why crowdfunding is so great, it lets us determine what we want to see in a game.
Saying that SC is somehow impairing the ability of others to make space sims is like saying that the existence of McDonald's makes it impossible for anyone else to open a restaurant. There are plenty of space sims which have been successfully funded, Elite: Dangerous being one of them (which got a couple million bucks). Did you ever think that there might be another reason these games are failing? Maybe people just aren't interested in seeing their game? *gasp* I know, it's tough to accept, but the fact that there really haven't been any space sims for the past 15 years should tell you that it was, basically, a dead genre. The fact that, arguably, the two biggest names from that genre were able to successfully fund a game in a dead genre doesn't mean it's carte blanche for everyone to just start up their own project and have it be successful.
I'm not sure if you're asking be a question "SC is ambitious?" Is that a question, or is it rhetoric? If you don't think that SC is ambitious as a game, then you obviously have no clue about the game. The fact that you believe that E:D == SC is not helping your credibility. E:D is a Space Flight Sim. SC is, essentially, a persistent universe where you live in the world. It's space flight, walking around planets, boarding other ships, FPS, plus a single-player campaign. If this is E:D, please let me know because I'll go and buy it today. If SC were to ship E:D today, there would be plenty of people pissed off. That's not to say E:D isn't a good game, it's just to say that they are different games. They are not equivalent.
Oh, and one more thing, there was PLENTY of backlash with E:D. You do realize that, right? Because they shipped without promised features? So maybe it's not the model you want to be using for whatever lesson you're trying to teach.
First of all, do you have proof that Chris Roberts has no idea how to implement these ideas? Saying that Chris Roberts doesn't know how to implement a space sim is like saying Lebron James doesn't know how to dunk a basketball. He's done it plenty of times. Additionally, this vision is nothing new, he actually had an opportunity to implement these types of features YEARS ago in Freelancer, but it was under a publisher, so it was the typical "ship it" mentality. This is why crowdfunding is so great, it lets us determine what we want to see in a game.
Freelancer? You mean the game developed by CR's studio Digital Anvil? The same game that suffered massive delays because Roberts over promised and set deadlines that couldn't be met? How about that Microsoft had to buy his studio to make sure the game would even be released. They kept him on as a "creative consultant" but considering the features they had to cut or reduce in scope it sounds like they had no intention of using him since he had failed so far.
What will happen to SC when the money starts to dry up and the game is nowhere near completion? Will he slap together whatever he has to create a Frankenstein type monster of a game or will he just turn towards a large publisher and beg for large sums of cash because once again he over promised and under delivered? He can only milk his fan base for so long before even they start to revolt.
As time goes on and more delays start happening and for longer periods more of his fan base is going to start questioning his ability to actually finish the game with the promised features. He will be left with only the most rabid of fans who will jump on anyone who dares question him and will just echo anything he says.
First of all, do you have proof that Chris Roberts has no idea how to implement these ideas? Saying that Chris Roberts doesn't know how to implement a space sim is like saying Lebron James doesn't know how to dunk a basketball. He's done it plenty of times. Additionally, this vision is nothing new, he actually had an opportunity to implement these types of features YEARS ago in Freelancer, but it was under a publisher, so it was the typical "ship it" mentality. This is why crowdfunding is so great, it lets us determine what we want to see in a game.
Freelancer? You mean the game developed by CR's studio Digital Anvil? The same game that suffered massive delays because Roberts over promised and set deadlines that couldn't be met? How about that Microsoft had to buy his studio to make sure the game would even be released. They kept him on as a "creative consultant" but considering the features they had to cut or reduce in scope it sounds like they had no intention of using him since he had failed so far.
What will happen to SC when the money starts to dry up and the game is nowhere near completion? Will he slap together whatever he has to create a Frankenstein type monster of a game or will he just turn towards a large publisher and beg for large sums of cash because once again he over promised and under delivered? He can only milk his fan base for so long before even they start to revolt.
As time goes on and more delays start happening and for longer periods more of his fan base is going to start questioning his ability to actually finish the game with the promised features. He will be left with only the most rabid of fans who will jump on anyone who dares question him and will just echo anything he says.
Heeey!!!! So you've heard of it
The point wasn't that he's "done" this before. I feel like if Freelancer was everything every Chris Roberts fan wanted, then Star Citizen would fall on deaf ears now. The fact is that this is a vision he's had for like 30 years, and it's pretty much public domain knowledge at this point, because that is what Freelancer was "going to be". Yes, Freelancer wasn't "that" game, but it was still critically acclaimed and I remember it as being absolutely phenomenal.
Freelancer was not a question of whether Chris Roberts had the ability to implement ideas. The game was not off the rails. The game was so massive in scope that there was nobody willing to invest the money to complete it. That was the whole reason Roberts left the project. They were basically trying to change his vision to something more economical. They called it "creative differences" but we know what that means.
Anyway, I don't know what the budget was with Freelancer, but I guarantee it wasn't $85 million. There are no excuses now, IMO. If he fails, then he needs to let the vision die. Otherwise, I don't care when it ships, just do it right. If people want to drop money into it, go nuts.
Derek Smart has a lot of experience in "failures" that get him more money. what if he identified sc as being the same thing. also, atacking the poster instead of analizing his argument is very poor.
Originally posted by TsaboHavoc Derek Smart has a lot of experience in "failures" that get him more money. what if he identified sc as being the same thing. also, atacking the poster instead of analizing his argument is very poor.
Lol, you could be right!!!!! Is that why he speaks so arrogantly on the topic?
Originally posted by TsaboHavoc Derek Smart has a lot of experience in "failures" that get him more money. what if he identified sc as being the same thing. also, atacking the poster instead of analizing his argument is very poor.
Lol, you could be right!!!!! Is that why he speaks so arrogantly on the topic?
everything that comes from that guy´s mouth is surrounded in arrogance and egocentrism, if u can filter that, u can see some fair points in his arguments.
everything that comes from that guy´s mouth is surrounded in arrogance and egocentrism, if u can filter that, u can see some fair points in his arguments.
Yup. Harlan Ellison is a similar animal. But the fact that he's temperamental, abrasive and loves to argue doesn't mean that his opinions on the vocation that he's made a living pursuing are irrelevant.
I think there is a huge market for a space-sim game. We have Eve, which everyone wants to have planets to walk around on, still going strong. We've had SWG. SWTOR and STO are still going strong. Privateer, Freelancer, and the Wing Commander games were big. There is a market out there, if the game is done right.
In software development, the saying is the third time is the charm. First time, you don't know what you are doing, and fail. Second time, you THINK you know what you are doing, try to do too much, and fail. Third time, you know what you are doing and know to do the absolute minimum to get the job done.
Sounds like SC is still the 2nd try. Shame, I'd love to play it, but won't spend any money until it is released.
I think they've got a wonderful thing going. They draw up a couple of pretty pictures of spaceships, perhaps a static 3D model, and people throw money at them like women threw panties at a Beatles concert. They talk up all the cool stuff the money will let them add, then announce another delay in development. Rinse, repeat.
I dislike Mr. Smart, but the man does know his way around the industry. Just because he's a narcissistic, overly argumentative jackass doesn't mean his opinion is invalid or unfounded.
I do hope the game comes out though, and I hope it's good. God knows I'd love another Privateer style space game, though Starpoint Gemini II does partially fill that desire. My money's on No Man's Sky though.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
Comments
>>> I should end now before it became a Bible. >>>
You are quoting the old obsolete Kickstarter text ... AGAIN ....
and I answer AGAIN .... "A lot has changed, the project has been completely revamped and enlarged ... and the backers have been informed about it every step of the way (if they want to hear...) .. the old statements and the old timetable are no longer accurate and everyone who can read knows it"
and i tell you AGAIN ... if you think CIG is breaking any laws .. SUE THEM !
Have fun
It's not just them and their fans that will suffer if such fail happening.
With better attitude of the devs, they assuming their legal responsibilities when advertising, and they paying when failing to, called attention, getting bad press, etc., the crowd-funding actually can become a much more reliable and two-way street road for both customers and developers.
FTC would never "give them an excuse to not deliver". They just would give an alert and if CIG do not assume their legal responsibility and persist, well, here FTC will act and will save many people of losing money, as well as will give to people, a little more trust that they can actually have someone looking to their rights and to the legal responsibilities of developers, when crowd-funding.
"The purpose of the higher stretch goals is to ensure that the game-as-described is finished in the two year time period."
Half-brain and you can understand what the statement above means. In other words, the entire core of the game of the pitch (Star Citizen Persistent Universe, Squadron 42) should be in your hands now. Are they? Are they coming in any time soon? We are 8 months delayed and counting.
What about the Alpha? Never came so far. It says that you could fly in 12 months in, with the ship that you pledged for. I am pretty sure that people who pledged for a Constellation are yet not flying with this ship, and probably won't in 36 months.
And the Beta... where you could adventure yourself in a huge open galaxy, has been 1 year delayed.
You say... "a lot has changed", but, for all these changes, Roberts repeated again and again in many letters that they wouldn't impact in the release date of the core of the game, that they were not feature creep. The material to show this is rich and public record.
Those Roberts statements are both from the earlier days of Kickstarter and later events. And if you dig more, you will find similar things happening even along this year. Like telling that the FPS module would come soon after Pax East, and presenting as the excuses for the delays, basically the same similar excuses that he presented to the DFM delay.
The fact that they brought excuses, generally is not enough to defend them against an unfair/deceptive marketing claim. His defense case is a lost one, considering that he repeated that again, again and again, and been a 20-year old veteran of the game industry, he can't claim that does not know how to estimate a game, both in short and long term estimates, mainly when having a lesson learned in the own project, or even alpha modules (never required to be polished, but functional, and if you hold because are making it more fancy visually, you are not interested to deliver, you are interested to sell more).
Anyway, It's not me "thinking". They broke the law. It's Federal Trade Comission who says that, by definition of the own law, not me. Again, it's just a matter of people act.
FTC needs complaints to act.
Gamers doesn't have this habit, they just became disappointed and move on, in general. That's why developers are been irresponsible. But if gamers start to act, this scenario can change with government authorities helping, giving constant reminds to devs, and good examples of penalties in case they persist on mistake, and the crowd-funding can still have some hope in its future/maintenance and grow.
That's what Derek is asking/suggesting. I agree with him. But for me to open an individual lawsuit against them, as you suggested, even that the set of proves of their unfair/deceptive attitude are huge, that would require a lot of monetary/time effort from my side, because we are separated (I and CIG) for a big ocean. So, what people in the same situation can do only, probably, is to try FTC.
Thanks for the suggestion by the way. I would give the same suggestion for those who live in United States, in case they also agree that what CIG made is unfair business with customers and is bringing a negative impact for the future of the Space Sim genre and crowd-funding.
CIG is already persisting. Have you even read the website? The REALITY of the situation is that they actually communicate more frequently with their community than the majority of game companies out there. They certainly aren't quiet.
Crowd funding doesn't need CIG to be held accountable to help prove it is a way to successfully fund a game. As it is right now, the percentage of successfully-funded games which are being delivered year-over-year is actually increasing, meaning that crowdfunding is already showing that it is a viable means of funding a game. People like YOU and people like Derek Smart do nothing be set that process back. Why? Well, we've proven that indie games can actually deliver through crowdfunding. We've proven that some larger-scale games can be delivered through the platform. What has NOT been proven is whether or not a true AAA-budget game can be delivered through the platform. SC COULD be the most ambitious project that's ever been taken on (up for debate, but it's certainly massive in scale). So if fans would like to be a part of history, then throw your money at it. If you don't then keep your money in your pocket. You talk about white knights, etc. in your posts, but you're the complete opposite. You're the Black Knight, trying to rally support for negativity and somehow hampering the ability to put this game out.
The scope of this game is simply daunting, I would agree with that. However, the plan of attack isn't undisciplined at all. It's completely modular and they are releasing modules as they become available. There doesn't seem to be any deviation from that. Behind Schedule? IDK. Back on December 6th, 2013 Roberts was quoted as saying "So, the module we are planning to do right after dogfighting is the Planetside module". The Arena Commander is already out. Then, June 14th, 2014 he was quoted as saying "Next year we’re going to be showing the planetside stuff." and back in 2013, his vision was similarly concise during an interview when he was quoted as saying, "And then after [the planetside module] we're gonna have the first-person shooter ship boarding module where they can fight against other people on their ship. And then an alpha of the single-player story Squadron 42. And then finally an alpha of Star Citizen, which is a full sandbox universe that involves all these modules." That's the schedule. Period. So the game itself hasn't deviated from it's plan at all?
What would make this better? To say it's "Early Access"? Obviously that's the excuse that Derek thinks is acceptable ground for release garbage (see Line of Defence) Does the fact that SC is a competitive product give Derek credibility or hurt his credibility? Does the fact that Derek wants you to pay for Early Access at multiple tiers (*cough* SHIPS *cough*) somehow make him any different? Does the fact that Derek has so many issues delivering quality product in his own right give him any credibility to criticize the scope of a project? No, not really. IMO, if anyone wants to complain to the FTC they should be calling about Line of Defence because it's utter trash and looks like people have played it, on average, for a combined total of less than an hour. I've taken shits longer than most people have been able to stomach playing his games.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Do you realize that Chris Roberts makes the exact same thing, almost all the time, right?
"To the rest of you, I only have this to say: stop buying virtual items for a goddamn game you don’t have. What in the holy phuck is the matter with you?!? You know how many indie games you could’ve bought and supported and been PLAYING by now?!?"
'nuff said...
I buy the JPEG for 15k. Tell me where is it in the Ship Store.
"smoked like crazy"... that reminded me this:
http://i.imgur.com/Q1FmUF1.jpg
If he'll do that for every person who's questioned SC, he's going to need a lot of crappy ships in his game.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
I started reading it, jumped over his own-history blurb as I wasn't interested in this but wanted his opinion on Star Citizen - despite having zero interest in this kind of game. But I've heard about the sums being poured into it and have seen MMO's hyped and not even make it to the market or the incredible soap operas surrounding some.
What made me stop read the "this is why it will fail" part was the claim that CryEngine 3 can't support anything persistent, large, physics-based which is seamless and has 3D flight. Why? Because even though I've not become a big fan of it, I've played ArcheAge. Which is ... persistent, large, physics-based, seamless and has 3D flight. I can list Wikipedia too and ignoring what doesn't fit the tone of my rants.
Even Civilization Online will run on CryEngine 3, Wander does (though I heard bad stuff about it in terms of performance/bugs). Cabal 2 is a MMO on CryEngine 3 as well and released. But yes, ArcheAge I think is the most technically advanced.
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ...
Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse
Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2
Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
There is a huge (seriously huge) difference between the Archeage/Cabel level of fidelity / world + multiplayer and the proposed Star Citizen level of fidelity / world + multiplayer. IF you know what they are saying that will implement (Actually DS told in his article) you would have your answer of why it will never move forward unless made with an engine built from scratch for it. I really doubt that Archeage and CAbal are so massive as games of the kind of Star Citizen or Elite: Dangerous.
For example, we know for sure that SC won't have seamless transictions, for example. The engine can't handle that in the level of fidelity that they are trying to. But they forgot to mention about the own space battles... in multiplayer, of how possibly they will handle capital ship battles + fighters + multiplayer + high level of fidelity and exteriors/interiors, with seamless boarding, etc.
See?
Impossible. And what is more fun about it, is that they sell those capital ship playable, for thousands of dollars each and have been even increasing their models and details, clearly only focusing on Squadron 42, because will be a single-player experience (And they won't be playable).
The problem starts when they start to think to put that and make that a reality in the PU, where will be the place that those will be actually playable for those people who paid 2500 dollars for each one of them.
Elite could be possible (what they are targetting to). They are not going so deep in "tiny little things" in their models, and the guys actually have a proper engine to advance with their game and create seamless transictions and huge things/maps, etc. They kind of know better how to balance visuals and gameplay and have a proper engine to handle it. Not the case of Star Citizen.
Sixteen games that in my 24 years of being a hardcore gamer, and i've not heard of him, or any of his games. And this person is your role model?
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I'm not familiar with the term "fidelity", but I'm startled by a claim of "capital ships in space won't work and seamless down to planet in connection won't either". Why? A huge ship is still just a single entity in an empty space while some land-battle with tons of player avatars eat much higher performance usually due to details. There is large PvP in ArcheAge and it is smooth, I've been there, 50 or so people at least visible, high definition, was running smooth even on my rather ancient PC.
What does it matter if someone has such a huge ship and people inside? You don't need to visualize these, you don't need to connect their movement etc, only their direct impact on ship-space interaction needs to be communicated. For all its worth the ship is a simple instance otherwise and the people can do whatever they do in unrelated simulations?
I found the article bloated and unconvincing, throwing around claims but little numbers or actual hard tech. He basically says "It can't be done, because we could not!" and then quotes Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I'm very skeptical about newbies in the genre pulling off anything larger than a single player game, I've a tiny bit of background of "trying to do a MMO" with an Indie group too - turned quickly a nightmare technically wise back then and we dropped the idea for sheer lack of feasibility. So he preaches to the converted with this statement. But besides that ... the article is not convincing for specific claims to me.
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ...
Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse
Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2
Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
First of all, do you have proof that Chris Roberts has no idea how to implement these ideas? Saying that Chris Roberts doesn't know how to implement a space sim is like saying Lebron James doesn't know how to dunk a basketball. He's done it plenty of times. Additionally, this vision is nothing new, he actually had an opportunity to implement these types of features YEARS ago in Freelancer, but it was under a publisher, so it was the typical "ship it" mentality. This is why crowdfunding is so great, it lets us determine what we want to see in a game.
Saying that SC is somehow impairing the ability of others to make space sims is like saying that the existence of McDonald's makes it impossible for anyone else to open a restaurant. There are plenty of space sims which have been successfully funded, Elite: Dangerous being one of them (which got a couple million bucks). Did you ever think that there might be another reason these games are failing? Maybe people just aren't interested in seeing their game? *gasp* I know, it's tough to accept, but the fact that there really haven't been any space sims for the past 15 years should tell you that it was, basically, a dead genre. The fact that, arguably, the two biggest names from that genre were able to successfully fund a game in a dead genre doesn't mean it's carte blanche for everyone to just start up their own project and have it be successful.
I'm not sure if you're asking be a question "SC is ambitious?" Is that a question, or is it rhetoric? If you don't think that SC is ambitious as a game, then you obviously have no clue about the game. The fact that you believe that E:D == SC is not helping your credibility. E:D is a Space Flight Sim. SC is, essentially, a persistent universe where you live in the world. It's space flight, walking around planets, boarding other ships, FPS, plus a single-player campaign. If this is E:D, please let me know because I'll go and buy it today. If SC were to ship E:D today, there would be plenty of people pissed off. That's not to say E:D isn't a good game, it's just to say that they are different games. They are not equivalent.
Oh, and one more thing, there was PLENTY of backlash with E:D. You do realize that, right? Because they shipped without promised features? So maybe it's not the model you want to be using for whatever lesson you're trying to teach.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Freelancer? You mean the game developed by CR's studio Digital Anvil? The same game that suffered massive delays because Roberts over promised and set deadlines that couldn't be met? How about that Microsoft had to buy his studio to make sure the game would even be released. They kept him on as a "creative consultant" but considering the features they had to cut or reduce in scope it sounds like they had no intention of using him since he had failed so far.
What will happen to SC when the money starts to dry up and the game is nowhere near completion? Will he slap together whatever he has to create a Frankenstein type monster of a game or will he just turn towards a large publisher and beg for large sums of cash because once again he over promised and under delivered? He can only milk his fan base for so long before even they start to revolt.
As time goes on and more delays start happening and for longer periods more of his fan base is going to start questioning his ability to actually finish the game with the promised features. He will be left with only the most rabid of fans who will jump on anyone who dares question him and will just echo anything he says.
Heeey!!!! So you've heard of it
The point wasn't that he's "done" this before. I feel like if Freelancer was everything every Chris Roberts fan wanted, then Star Citizen would fall on deaf ears now. The fact is that this is a vision he's had for like 30 years, and it's pretty much public domain knowledge at this point, because that is what Freelancer was "going to be". Yes, Freelancer wasn't "that" game, but it was still critically acclaimed and I remember it as being absolutely phenomenal.
Freelancer was not a question of whether Chris Roberts had the ability to implement ideas. The game was not off the rails. The game was so massive in scope that there was nobody willing to invest the money to complete it. That was the whole reason Roberts left the project. They were basically trying to change his vision to something more economical. They called it "creative differences" but we know what that means.
Anyway, I don't know what the budget was with Freelancer, but I guarantee it wasn't $85 million. There are no excuses now, IMO. If he fails, then he needs to let the vision die. Otherwise, I don't care when it ships, just do it right. If people want to drop money into it, go nuts.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Lol, you could be right!!!!! Is that why he speaks so arrogantly on the topic?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
everything that comes from that guy´s mouth is surrounded in arrogance and egocentrism, if u can filter that, u can see some fair points in his arguments.
Yup. Harlan Ellison is a similar animal. But the fact that he's temperamental, abrasive and loves to argue doesn't mean that his opinions on the vocation that he's made a living pursuing are irrelevant.
I think there is a huge market for a space-sim game. We have Eve, which everyone wants to have planets to walk around on, still going strong. We've had SWG. SWTOR and STO are still going strong. Privateer, Freelancer, and the Wing Commander games were big. There is a market out there, if the game is done right.
In software development, the saying is the third time is the charm. First time, you don't know what you are doing, and fail. Second time, you THINK you know what you are doing, try to do too much, and fail. Third time, you know what you are doing and know to do the absolute minimum to get the job done.
Sounds like SC is still the 2nd try. Shame, I'd love to play it, but won't spend any money until it is released.
Meanwhile, popcorn!
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
I think they've got a wonderful thing going. They draw up a couple of pretty pictures of spaceships, perhaps a static 3D model, and people throw money at them like women threw panties at a Beatles concert. They talk up all the cool stuff the money will let them add, then announce another delay in development. Rinse, repeat.
I dislike Mr. Smart, but the man does know his way around the industry. Just because he's a narcissistic, overly argumentative jackass doesn't mean his opinion is invalid or unfounded.
I do hope the game comes out though, and I hope it's good. God knows I'd love another Privateer style space game, though Starpoint Gemini II does partially fill that desire. My money's on No Man's Sky though.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic