Again these are comments based on false accusation, Roberts has been transparent, and the development team sends out constant updates. If you aren't a backer you really have no dog in this fight. Any one in their right minds should understand you can't take $90 million from people and give them a $6 million dollar turd, which is all the kickstarter made by the way, $6 million. All the rest of the money came afterward. Do you expect those people who dumped millions into the game to play a 6 million dollar game? Nope I don't, and I wouldn't play it either.
It's interesting to me that people who claim to be "producers", or even "at heart" ones, would want to see a company take so much money and deliver so little. Honestly if you want a game with content drought go play one of Derek's games. If you want a game with some originality wait for SC. It's only been 2 and half years since the kickstarter ended. I'd like to see someone else try to design a AAA class mmo worth $90 million in under 2 years like you seem to want Roberts to do, please go do it. I'll be here watching it fail at luanch because it was rushed and bugged.
Then you ask them to spend more in a "decent PR / Marketing team"? Marketing for whom? The game isn't ready for non backers to know about yet, as it's not close enough to launch. The game has already generated $90 million in interest, who else should they do marketing for? The core of the playerbase has already backed the game, people who are less interested, or hype train riders, will find out after it launches. Of course more marketing will be done before launch, but hell the Wing Commander movie is now being featured on Netflix, you think that's by accident? I think you are confused on what this game really needs, and what you think is right.
Ok so what is the difference in waiting 8 years for SC to release (throwing a number out there for arguments sake) and having CIG release the game they promised in the kickstarter and adding features as money came in? CR himself even said that this isnt like the old days where everything and the kitchen sink had to be in at launch.
Is it possible they realize they have a license to print money so they are dragging this along for as long as possible? If/when they hit the 100 million dollar mark will CR suddenly make a statement saying that they actually need 150 million to finish the game now, repeat ad nauseum until people stop throwing money at the project?
The difference is first impressions are important, it's been proven in many other games that people don't want to wait around in a stale game for it to be fun, you either need to scrap the initial game and relaunch (see: FFXIV) or your mmo dies. It will turn out better for everyone to have a polished persistent world, with all the core features installed, than to have a giant arena commander (see:other space sims), and wait for being able to step out of your ship and actually do things. There are lots of other space sims on the market where you can fly around and nothing else, those might be for some people, but Star Citizen is no longer going to be one of those.
As for when is enough, enough? I'd say the problem we are seeing with SC is that the money has rolled in a bit late they only made 6.2 million from the kickstarter, they then proceeded to make 35 more in 2013, then the rest in 2014. I'd say now that they know what they are going to be, they are able to focus toward an end faster. Perception is though, that they have been sitting on all this money since the 2012 date. Which is not true, I think Q4 2016, Q1 2017, would be a decent amount of time to do what they want, given what they have now. This is a game that plans to push the envelope and even plans to advance it's game engine with time, no other mmos I'm aware of are in this boat.
I'm sure CIG will probably keep selling ships well near launch, and it will pass $100 million before then as well, but to say that they won't eventually start banking the money for future upgrades would be false at best. They are looking to be the big name in sci fi mmos for a while.
Also it is worth noting that a fair chunk of the money they got had to go in to a account so they could refund money should it be needed, especially for the higher teirs. Nobody really cares if you want your 30$ back but if a few "whales" wants his/her 2-3000+$ back there is a very different situation. Not to mention if something would happen to the KS gang. So it is not like they can just spend all the money they get willy-nilly either.
As for all the could have / would have / should have...We can speculate all we want. It will not make us any better a predicting alternate timelines. SC is what it is right now. It will never live up to the hype but it will be a one of a kind game no matter what. It will also teach people something about the difference between donating and investing.
I don't feel like it would be a stretch to say, if Smart were the man running Star Citizen, the budget probably would look something like this. 30 million for salaries, 20 million for a nice big building, 10 million in ads, and 5 million for the game development. The rest of the money would go toward his next terrible project.
And what makes you think Star Citizen isn't the same case? Do you have an access to RSI account books...?
I don't feel like it would be a stretch to say, if Smart were the man running Star Citizen, the budget probably would look something like this. 30 million for salaries, 20 million for a nice big building, 10 million in ads, and 5 million for the game development. The rest of the money would go toward his next terrible project.
And what makes you think Star Citizen isn't the same case? Do you have an access to RSI account books...?
Have you seen derek smarts games? and compare that to star citizen. RSI hasn't even released a game but its already less buggy then anything 3000ad has ever released
Have you seen derek smarts games? and compare that to star citizen. RSI hasn't even released a game but its already less buggy then anything 3000ad has ever released
And how is that supposed to refute my point...?
Going with the numbers from original post, out of $80M, only $15M could be spent on the game and considering how little RSI achieved in 4 years so far, it wouldn't be surprising.
"Why not just do what Smart wants and get on with everyone's lives?"
You can't possibly be serious.
I am curious as to why you are offering such a stark reaction to that statement? Please offer me insight as to why what he's doing is a bad thing.
EDIT: I am not talking about morals of WHY hes doing what hes doing. I am simply talking about the items he is requesting from CIG.
If i ask you to show me your business log book, you will just let me see it right? And Derek "moron" doesn't have any morals, he is a fucking conman.
I understand the point you are making, but again, CIG has not exactly been smart with their money. They are truly in a tough situation because what Smart is accusing them of is something that could very well possibly be the case.
What's your evidence of that? Why do you think CIG is in a tough situation and mishandled their money exactly? Just because of one dude on the internet?
CIG has 2 WEEKLY programs to keep the fans up todate on development and daily updates to their pages, so communication is quite good. CIG has held numerous presentations at various events during the years, showing off their current work, they have kept an outstanding level of engagement with the fans rarely seen.
This level of suspicion and paranoia is simply not reasonable with the amount of information (monthly magazine, monthly studio updates, weekly Q&A with Chris Roberts, weekly ATV program with news on the game, regular interviews with the devs, Bug Smasher, weekly updates on Star Marine status and more!) and deliverables (AC, Racing module, Hangar module, Social module just released to PTR and a growing number of ships delivered to both hangar and AC modules) we have.
Seeing all this overwhelming evidence on the character of Mr. Smart, I must conclude his accusation is void of any value. You can say that we should talk of the fact itself and not the man behind the fact, but I beg to differ in this specific case due to lack of any evidence of wrongdoing about CIG and the mountain of evidence pointing to Mr. Smart not being fully honest here.
Analysis completed.
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"
I certainly have to agree with @i_own_u . The backers have replaced traditional investors.. And you can bet your ass those traditional investors were demanding a high degree of transparency in where their money was being spent. Why should backers be treated so differently?
I have no clue if Smart's lawsuit or allegations are legitimate. But to say that backers should get anything less than transparency from the developers is to completely ignore the way investments have worked in the past with game development in favor of simply giving developers free reign to spend money behind closed doors any way they see fit. That's a recipe for disaster.
What exactly is transparency here though? People use that word and that word alone to describe what they want... it really doesn't say much. Do people want to see progress... or do they want to see itemized lists of where every single dime has gone, including where employees are spending their paychecks? The nature of this funding, and the nature of true investment are completely different things. The former is a high risk situation, while the latter not so much in most cases (at least in gaming)...
You also have to consider true investors deal with companies in private scenarios during development... Not publicly. I get it people don't wanna be ripped off... that's understandable. Yet expecting a studio to have the same relationship with public crowdfundees, as a corporation would have with it's private investors is a little much IMO. For many reasons. No matter how you slice it, backers need to realize they made a high risk donation that may never pan out.
One of the many reasons (as another poster pointed out as well) I will not back any of these projects. It IS an investment on the parts of the gamers. If i'm not at least given an honest and up front idea of where all the 80+ million dollars of money is going, I won't be one to contribute a single dime of it.
The "modules" shown don't really do enough (in my mind) to show the fruits of such huge sums of money. Is it lawsuit worthy? I have no reason to believe so, despite Smart's allegations (as they're just that right now). However, I think acting as if honest and forthright communication in the financial spending of other people's money is a bad thing can hardly be defended with a straight face. As consumers and potential backers, I think it would be silly to advocate a lack of such up front and honest communication.
I certainly have to agree with @i_own_u . The backers have replaced traditional investors.. And you can bet your ass those traditional investors were demanding a high degree of transparency in where their money was being spent. Why should backers be treated so differently?
I have no clue if Smart's lawsuit or allegations are legitimate. But to say that backers should get anything less than transparency from the developers is to completely ignore the way investments have worked in the past with game development in favor of simply giving developers free reign to spend money behind closed doors any way they see fit. That's a recipe for disaster.
What exactly is transparency here though? People use that word and that word alone to describe what they want... it really doesn't say much. Do people want to see progress... or do they want to see itemized lists of where every single dime has gone, including where employees are spending their paychecks? The nature of this funding, and the nature of true investment are completely different things. The former is a high risk situation, while the latter not so much in most cases (at least in gaming)...
You also have to consider true investors deal with companies in private scenarios during development... Not publicly. I get it people don't wanna be ripped off... that's understandable. Yet expecting a studio to have the same relationship with public crowdfundees, as a corporation would have with it's private investors is a little much IMO. For many reasons. No matter how you slice it, backers need to realize they made a high risk donation that may never pan out.
One of the many reasons (as another poster pointed out as well) I will not back any of these projects. It IS an investment on the parts of the gamers. If i'm not at least given an honest and up front idea of where all the 80+ million dollars of money is going, I won't be one to contribute a single dime of it.
The "modules" shown don't really do enough (in my mind) to show the fruits of such huge sums of money. Is it lawsuit worthy? I have no reason to believe so, despite Smart's allegations (as they're just that right now). However, I think acting as if honest and forthright communication in the financial spending of other people's money is a bad thing can hardly be defended with a straight face. As consumers and potential backers, I think it would be silly to advocate a lack of such up front and honest communication.
Defending closed books is quite easy, especially with so many people so passionate about the product. The running of a company and spending of money is very subjective. So it is likely that each and every spend will have some who think it's fine and some who think it's over-spending. So unless you document your reasoning behind that spending, as well, then it offers zero value. Honestly, we don't need to see the books anyway. If they give a date, I think that would suffice. I honestly don't see how opening your books is going to help anyone, though, even where the expenditures are legitimate.
So in the past, corporations such as Sony and Blizzard were completely out in the open with all their staff meetings, design decisions, and how they spent their money. Every single penny was accounted for on the internet for all the Grognards and other assorted complainers to pore over and criticize. Anything less than this fantasy of how things should be is unacceptable, and a total break with the past in which all these AAA companies conducted themselves according to this standard.
What color is the sky in your world?
You can be pretty sure that the investors in the past had a good insight into the decisions of Sony and Blizzard. This time the investors are the backers.
wonder what lil smart will do if he sues thm n loose? i doubt hell sue prtty sure hell continue 2 thgrow dirt n hope somefing sticks let him provide th evidence to th court if he has some tht aint guess work n hunches tht is
wonder what lil smart will do if he sues thm n loose? i doubt hell sue prtty sure hell continue 2 thgrow dirt n hope somefing sticks let him provide th evidence to th court if he has some tht aint guess work n hunches tht is
I would expect RSI to sell more ships to pay for the legal battle. They could raise the 10-15M needed to fight this legal battle, while still keeping the game in development. The other option is to just shut the game down, and give people back 10 cents on the dollar.
Lol this letter is of no legal means at all. its just a other random letter sent whit " random" demands from the same person. absolute noting shows in the letter that the complainer has any rights to make such demands. Its all "suggestive" writing for the public media and the drama followers in order to get more attention to something that has not merit.
Would be extremely surprised if any real Legal action would emerge. but then..In the USA court cases are made over who dropped a ice cream or who farted in public.
So in the past, corporations such as Sony and Blizzard were completely out in the open with all their staff meetings, design decisions, and how they spent their money. Every single penny was accounted for on the internet for all the Grognards and other assorted complainers to pore over and criticize. Anything less than this fantasy of how things should be is unacceptable, and a total break with the past in which all these AAA companies conducted themselves according to this standard.
What color is the sky in your world?
You can be pretty sure that the investors in the past had a good insight into the decisions of Sony and Blizzard. This time the investors are the backers.
Unfortunately the backers are not by the legal terminology, investors in this case. And its their own damn fault. What the many backers of SC, and many other crowd funded projects, have done is the equivalent of dropping money in a panhandlers hat and then hoping he spends that money on bettering his musical career to the benefit of both parties. Just because some of these backers now have unsubstantiated fears that said panhandler may instead be spending that donated money on Night Train and black tar heroin, doesn't suddenly give those donators the right to come to the guys house and check, or demand their donations back. They forfeited their rights to what happened to that money the moment it left their hands.
Now do I feel that is a intelligent way for a company to do business? Nope. Do I feel its fair to the backers? Again nope, but as I said that's the backers own fault. They gave away hard earned money with little to no strings attached. And now that some of them are afraid they have made a drastic mistake, its a little too late. Which is why I don't back kickstarter projects. Which is also why I never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. And never shoot pool with a man nicknamed after a major city.
In summation I feel that's the biggest issue we should be discussing. Not rampantly speculating what the guys at SC are doing. Nor theorizing what Smarts motives might be. Instead I think we should be taking a good long look at how risky and foolhardy giving someone your money for an idea with zero control of what happens to that money once it leaves your pocket can be. And also who exactly deserves the most blame if they now regret that decision.
In my not so humble opinion I feel that if you feel SC ripped you off, you are the one most to blame. You're the fools that let yourselves be conned into jumping in the car in the hopes of an enjoyable ride in the country, but have now found to your horror your real destination is the vet's office where you'll be having your bollocks snipped off.
I agree with most of this, which is why I feel arguing against more transparency seems silly and why I won't be backing a project without more of it.
So in the past, corporations such as Sony and Blizzard were completely out in the open with all their staff meetings, design decisions, and how they spent their money. Every single penny was accounted for on the internet for all the Grognards and other assorted complainers to pore over and criticize. Anything less than this fantasy of how things should be is unacceptable, and a total break with the past in which all these AAA companies conducted themselves according to this standard.
What color is the sky in your world?
You can be pretty sure that the investors in the past had a good insight into the decisions of Sony and Blizzard. This time the investors are the backers.
Unfortunately the backers are not by the legal terminology, investors in this case. And its their own damn fault. What the many backers of SC, and many other crowd funded projects, have done is the equivalent of dropping money in a panhandlers hat and then hoping he spends that money on bettering his musical career to the benefit of both parties. Just because some of these backers now have unsubstantiated fears that said panhandler may instead be spending that donated money on Night Train and black tar heroin, doesn't suddenly give those donators the right to come to the guys house and check, or demand their donations back. They forfeited their rights to what happened to that money the moment it left their hands.
Now do I feel that is a intelligent way for a company to do business? Nope. Do I feel its fair to the backers? Again nope, but as I said that's the backers own fault. They gave away hard earned money with little to no strings attached. And now that some of them are afraid they have made a drastic mistake, its a little too late. Which is why I don't back kickstarter projects. Which is also why I never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. And never shoot pool with a man nicknamed after a major city.
In summation I feel that's the biggest issue we should be discussing. Not rampantly speculating what the guys at SC are doing. Nor theorizing what Smarts motives might be. Instead I think we should be taking a good long look at how risky and foolhardy giving someone your money for an idea with zero control of what happens to that money once it leaves your pocket can be. And also who exactly deserves the most blame if they now regret that decision.
In my not so humble opinion I feel that if you feel SC ripped you off, you are the one most to blame. You're the fools that let yourselves be conned into jumping in the car in the hopes of an enjoyable ride in the country, but have now found to your horror your real destination is the vet's office where you'll be having your bollocks snipped off.
I agree with most of this, which is why I feel arguing against more transparency seems silly and why I won't be backing a project without more of it.
Same. It's why I don't back KS projects, period.
But if were to back one, it would be CU. That is the only KS MMO I'm aware of that has a well-known, 100%, no questions asked refund policy. In lieu of transparency, that's an excellent way to do it that puts their money where their PR mouth is.
And it's worth noting that Mark Jacobs did that voluntarily as a feature of their KS despite the fact that they were also not legally required to do so. If RSI had the same policy then truly none of the detractors, including Smart, could get any traction with their complaints.
But I'm sure the RSI fans will have something to say about why the CU refund policy is also a bad thing just like how transparency also apparently is
"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
I want to take the time to make something clear with everyone. I am not advocating what Smart is doing. It seems as though some of you are taking my comments about CIG and twisting them to make it seem like I am approving of Smart's approach. This is not the case.
I am simply analyzing the situation between CIG and a customer who is *seemingly* not pleased with a crowd funded project, and trying to provoke discussion as to why this could have possibly happened. It could be Smart, it could be John Doe. It really doesn't matter to me. What really matters is that CIG has found themselves in a bad situation with a very angry investor (since everyone who donated to CIG is an 'investor').
EDIT: I also apologize if any of my comments seem to show me advocating for Smart. It was not my intention to start a pitchfork mob against him. I am trying my best to remain objective.
This game was slated for 2014. It was slated for 2014 in the form of JUST Squadron 42 with a much smaller multiplayer mode than we have envisioned now. Before that deadline even came around, a question was posed to the Star Citizen community. "Should we finish the game as best we can with the funds we have, or do we push on through to make it the best space sim ever imagined?" The community voted to make SC what the vision is now. What DS is saying is that it has passed a deadline that means nothing now. One that was tossed out long before. Every videogame media site is looking to tear down the walls that they are building themselves, blaming the people on the other side for it. This is why video games are announced when in beta stages. This is why video games are announced just months before they are done. This is why we don't see past the veil. Because the majority of consumer zombies cannot take the passion and patience it takes to create something so meaningful and it really just hurts me to see this virus spread due to the majority beating out the few who understand and comprehend the PRIVILEGE we have to see SC behind the glass. Games take time. This one is not going slow. Not at all. We just get to see what happens during every AAA game development cycle, with the exception of the yearly titles that have assets already and begin production immediately as the last hit gold. This isnt something going wrong, this is something that happens all the time, but we are seeing it first hand. I love SC, but I'm not blind to issues. I just haven't seen any that warrant this behavior by Derek Smart. I'm not an expert by far, but I atleast can see the work that is being put into this and being shown to us as what it is. Progress. There actually is progress. Definition of fast or slow is irrelevant! Its all based on the person making the judgement and there really is no true precedent for it as every project is different. Though it is true, games take YEARS to make. More than 3. Some more than 4. Even some more than that! Its all based on the final product. Lets remind ourselves that there is no publisher, and having one certainly wouldnt make this project better! It would rush it. It run it right into the ground. The SC community has given CIG the power to take their time and do it right. Do everything WE.. WE ASKED FOR. This is not feature creep. We ASKED for this. We put money into "THE BEST SPACE SIM EVER". The SC community wanted this and it is what we are getting. And suddenly thats a crime? I'm not a white knight, I'm a realist, and I see no issue with the current progress of Star Citizen and I only see a little boy crying for mommy so that he can take the big boy chair behind SC development to do the same thing he did for Alganon. We are going to see something amazing in the next couple years. Something that will revitalize PC gaming, and bring back a stale genre. That is something I am willing to wait for and all Chris Roberts has asked the community for is the patience for that. I think that is just about all I have to say on the matter.
I don't feel like it would be a stretch to say, if Smart were the man running Star Citizen, the budget probably would look something like this. 30 million for salaries, 20 million for a nice big building, 10 million in ads, and 5 million for the game development. The rest of the money would go toward his next terrible project.
And what makes you think Star Citizen isn't the same case? Do you have an access to RSI account books...?
Talking to a friend who works on an MMO, the rule of thumb is that for each 100 employees, the cost is $1 mil a month. For RSI's claim of 259 employees, that'd be about $30 mil a year. That's irrespective of startup costs and the cost of outside teams doing contract work.
Got the impression that a month or so's worth of work was focused largely on the Gamescon demos and displays, with a lot of reintegration issues mentioned by CIG in its own commentary. Not unusual in the industry, but still expensive, and a pain for the staff.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
This game was slated for 2014. It was slated for 2014 in the form of JUST Squadron 42 with a much smaller multiplayer mode than we have envisioned now. Before that deadline even came around, a question was posed to the Star Citizen community. "Should we finish the game as best we can with the funds we have, or do we push on through to make it the best space sim ever imagined?" The community voted to make SC what the vision is now. What DS is saying is that it has passed a deadline that means nothing now. One that was tossed out long before. Every videogame media site is looking to tear down the walls that they are building themselves, blaming the people on the other side for it. This is why video games are announced when in beta stages. This is why video games are announced just months before they are done. This is why we don't see past the veil. Because the majority of consumer zombies cannot take the passion and patience it takes to create something so meaningful and it really just hurts me to see this virus spread due to the majority beating out the few who understand and comprehend the PRIVILEGE we have to see SC behind the glass. Games take time. This one is not going slow. Not at all. We just get to see what happens during every AAA game development cycle, with the exception of the yearly titles that have assets already and begin production immediately as the last hit gold. This isnt something going wrong, this is something that happens all the time, but we are seeing it first hand. I love SC, but I'm not blind to issues. I just haven't seen any that warrant this behavior by Derek Smart. I'm not an expert by far, but I atleast can see the work that is being put into this and being shown to us as what it is. Progress. There actually is progress. Definition of fast or slow is irrelevant! Its all based on the person making the judgement and there really is no true precedent for it as every project is different. Though it is true, games take YEARS to make. More than 3. Some more than 4. Even some more than that! Its all based on the final product. Lets remind ourselves that there is no publisher, and having one certainly wouldnt make this project better! It would rush it. It run it right into the ground. The SC community has given CIG the power to take their time and do it right. Do everything WE.. WE ASKED FOR. This is not feature creep. We ASKED for this. We put money into "THE BEST SPACE SIM EVER". The SC community wanted this and it is what we are getting. And suddenly thats a crime? I'm not a white knight, I'm a realist, and I see no issue with the current progress of Star Citizen and I only see a little boy crying for mommy so that he can take the big boy chair behind SC development to do the same thing he did for Alganon. We are going to see something amazing in the next couple years. Something that will revitalize PC gaming, and bring back a stale genre. That is something I am willing to wait for and all Chris Roberts has asked the community for is the patience for that. I think that is just about all I have to say on the matter.
Did they offer refunds to those that funded but didn't want the scope to change? Because I see nothing that says they might rescope the whole thing after they get your money. That's the only issue I have with the whole thing. They were funded for something very specific.
This game was slated for 2014. It was slated for 2014 in the form of JUST Squadron 42 with a much smaller multiplayer mode than we have envisioned now. Before that deadline even came around, a question was posed to the Star Citizen community. "Should we finish the game as best we can with the funds we have, or do we push on through to make it the best space sim ever imagined?" The community voted to make SC what the vision is now. What DS is saying is that it has passed a deadline that means nothing now. One that was tossed out long before. Every videogame media site is looking to tear down the walls that they are building themselves, blaming the people on the other side for it. This is why video games are announced when in beta stages. This is why video games are announced just months before they are done. This is why we don't see past the veil. Because the majority of consumer zombies cannot take the passion and patience it takes to create something so meaningful and it really just hurts me to see this virus spread due to the majority beating out the few who understand and comprehend the PRIVILEGE we have to see SC behind the glass. Games take time. This one is not going slow. Not at all. We just get to see what happens during every AAA game development cycle, with the exception of the yearly titles that have assets already and begin production immediately as the last hit gold. This isnt something going wrong, this is something that happens all the time, but we are seeing it first hand. I love SC, but I'm not blind to issues. I just haven't seen any that warrant this behavior by Derek Smart. I'm not an expert by far, but I atleast can see the work that is being put into this and being shown to us as what it is. Progress. There actually is progress. Definition of fast or slow is irrelevant! Its all based on the person making the judgement and there really is no true precedent for it as every project is different. Though it is true, games take YEARS to make. More than 3. Some more than 4. Even some more than that! Its all based on the final product. Lets remind ourselves that there is no publisher, and having one certainly wouldnt make this project better! It would rush it. It run it right into the ground. The SC community has given CIG the power to take their time and do it right. Do everything WE.. WE ASKED FOR. This is not feature creep. We ASKED for this. We put money into "THE BEST SPACE SIM EVER". The SC community wanted this and it is what we are getting. And suddenly thats a crime? I'm not a white knight, I'm a realist, and I see no issue with the current progress of Star Citizen and I only see a little boy crying for mommy so that he can take the big boy chair behind SC development to do the same thing he did for Alganon. We are going to see something amazing in the next couple years. Something that will revitalize PC gaming, and bring back a stale genre. That is something I am willing to wait for and all Chris Roberts has asked the community for is the patience for that. I think that is just about all I have to say on the matter.
Did they offer refunds to those that funded but didn't want the scope to change? Because I see nothing that says they might rescope the whole thing after they get your money. That's the only issue I have with the whole thing. They were funded for something very specific.
Chris Roberts pioneered an entire genre of gaming, developed a series of games that went on to make PC gaming history, and is widely considered to be a god among mere mortals within the industry.
Derek Smart has never accomplished anything noteworthy in the gaming industry. His worklist is entirely comprised of mediocre games and his "reputation" stems from his history of trolling and acting like a general douchebag whenever he feels it suits him.
Sometimes it is best not to bite off more than you can chew, and we all know Derek has a very big mouth that loves to run off whenever the chance presents itself, but this latest desperate attempt to try and remain even somewhat relevant is just sad and pathetic.
RSI's legal team will shit all over this clown.
so i wander has anyone who made a great game ever made a bad game later?hmmi just find this whole thing interesting,not that i would pay a dime for a 'game' yet to even have a piece of code written. but the whole argument is not about whether his accusations or true,just how great a guy the other person is.a simple search shows yes it has been delayed,several times i would gather.he claims he did not get a refund as told?i assume none of you know if that is false.he claims he made several comments on how he has downgraded the game,so did he or did he not. calling a person names does not actually refute his claims.if you want to put down good money on a dream go for it. but that person also needs to be held accountable for HIS part in it.if he has misled than,it is called fraud.but frankly this is a kind of scam that many have tried.if everything you people say about him is true,than why didn't he get a backer of his concept?
Did they offer refunds to those that funded but didn't want the scope to change? Because I see nothing that says they might rescope the whole thing after they get your money. That's the only issue I have with the whole thing. They were funded for something very specific.
In my books:
A first class company will always refund a customer who is honestly not happy with their purchase.
edit: IMHO RSI (since the game hasn't released yet) should refund anyone who is not happy with their purchase no matter when they pledged.
Comments
As for when is enough, enough? I'd say the problem we are seeing with SC is that the money has rolled in a bit late they only made 6.2 million from the kickstarter, they then proceeded to make 35 more in 2013, then the rest in 2014. I'd say now that they know what they are going to be, they are able to focus toward an end faster. Perception is though, that they have been sitting on all this money since the 2012 date. Which is not true, I think Q4 2016, Q1 2017, would be a decent amount of time to do what they want, given what they have now. This is a game that plans to push the envelope and even plans to advance it's game engine with time, no other mmos I'm aware of are in this boat.
I'm sure CIG will probably keep selling ships well near launch, and it will pass $100 million before then as well, but to say that they won't eventually start banking the money for future upgrades would be false at best. They are looking to be the big name in sci fi mmos for a while.
As for all the could have / would have / should have...We can speculate all we want. It will not make us any better a predicting alternate timelines. SC is what it is right now. It will never live up to the hype but it will be a one of a kind game no matter what. It will also teach people something about the difference between donating and investing.
This have been a good conversation
Going with the numbers from original post, out of $80M, only $15M could be spent on the game and considering how little RSI achieved in 4 years so far, it wouldn't be surprising.
Why do you think CIG is in a tough situation and mishandled their money exactly?
Just because of one dude on the internet?
Here are some facts:
Star Citizen is the biggest crowd funded project of all times. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/2015/preview/files/assets/basic-html/page17.html
CIG has offered some indication on how they are spending our money, like they were clear they bought a place and made a kick ass motion capture studio for the game and bought high definition face camera rigs for state of the art face animations. (http//www.guinnessworldrecords.com/2015/preview/files/assets/basic-html/page17.html check the 10M funding goal and this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT3bEv_UBac
for some examples)
CIG has 2 WEEKLY programs to keep the fans up todate on development and daily updates to their pages, so communication is quite good. CIG has held numerous presentations at various events during the years, showing off their current work, they have kept an outstanding level of engagement with the fans rarely seen.
This level of suspicion and paranoia is simply not reasonable with the amount of information (monthly magazine, monthly studio updates, weekly Q&A with Chris Roberts, weekly ATV program with news on the game, regular interviews with the devs, Bug Smasher, weekly updates on Star Marine status and more!) and deliverables (AC, Racing module, Hangar module, Social module just released to PTR and a growing number of ships delivered to both hangar and AC modules) we have.
Therefore, missing any proof or evidence, there can just one conclusion: Derek Smart does not care about "transparency" or this game at all as he has broken all the rules he pretend from CIG HIMSELF IN HIS OWN "GAMES". http://i.imgur.com/bfdao1c.png
http://i.imgur.com/OifDYwY.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlYGgju1R2o&feature=youtu.be
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/02/smartie-has-the-answers-derek-smart-on-line-of-defense/
So LoD was supposed to be out in 2011. Nice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7n29gEV18w&
Gamestar journalist does a preview of his game and is banned for being a journalist.
http://images.cgames.de/images/idgwpgsgp/bdb/2651980/600x.jpg
Seeing all this overwhelming evidence on the character of Mr. Smart, I must conclude his accusation is void of any value. You can say that we should talk of the fact itself and not the man behind the fact, but I beg to differ in this specific case due to lack of any evidence of wrongdoing about CIG and the mountain of evidence pointing to Mr. Smart not being fully honest here.
Analysis completed.
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"
The "modules" shown don't really do enough (in my mind) to show the fruits of such huge sums of money. Is it lawsuit worthy? I have no reason to believe so, despite Smart's allegations (as they're just that right now). However, I think acting as if honest and forthright communication in the financial spending of other people's money is a bad thing can hardly be defended with a straight face. As consumers and potential backers, I think it would be silly to advocate a lack of such up front and honest communication.
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
----------------
i doubt hell sue prtty sure hell continue 2 thgrow dirt n hope somefing sticks
let him provide th evidence to th court if he has some tht aint guess work n hunches tht is
MAGA
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
But if were to back one, it would be CU. That is the only KS MMO I'm aware of that has a well-known, 100%, no questions asked refund policy. In lieu of transparency, that's an excellent way to do it that puts their money where their PR mouth is.
And it's worth noting that Mark Jacobs did that voluntarily as a feature of their KS despite the fact that they were also not legally required to do so. If RSI had the same policy then truly none of the detractors, including Smart, could get any traction with their complaints.
But I'm sure the RSI fans will have something to say about why the CU refund policy is also a bad thing just like how transparency also apparently is
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I am simply analyzing the situation between CIG and a customer who is *seemingly* not pleased with a crowd funded project, and trying to provoke discussion as to why this could have possibly happened. It could be Smart, it could be John Doe. It really doesn't matter to me. What really matters is that CIG has found themselves in a bad situation with a very angry investor (since everyone who donated to CIG is an 'investor').
EDIT: I also apologize if any of my comments seem to show me advocating for Smart. It was not my intention to start a pitchfork mob against him. I am trying my best to remain objective.
Got the impression that a month or so's worth of work was focused largely on the Gamescon demos and displays, with a lot of reintegration issues mentioned by CIG in its own commentary. Not unusual in the industry, but still expensive, and a pain for the staff.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
A first class company will always refund a customer who is honestly not happy with their purchase.
edit: IMHO RSI (since the game hasn't released yet) should refund anyone who is not happy with their purchase no matter when they pledged.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee