Star Citizen Development Discussion (Is Derek Smart Right?)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,537
79
91
After a while they called it quits on stretch goals, but the idea is that all that additional funding has gone into the game development. We could've gotten a Wing Commander spiritual successor and CR could've run off with $100M at this point. Instead, we have four studios churning away at the most ambitious gaming project to date.
This is true. But it's also murky. They stopped stretched goals at $60 million. We're at $140 million now. So what has the extra $80 million gone towards? All we know is that we've been given a blanket statement of "it'll be used to further the development of the game" (paraphrasing). That's vague. I'd prefer some specifics but you know we're not going to be able to peak behind the curtain.....
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
This is true. But it's also murky. They stopped stretched goals at $60 million. We're at $140 million now. So what has the extra $80 million gone towards? All we know is that we've been given a blanket statement of "it'll be used to further the development of the game" (paraphrasing). That's vague. I'd prefer some specifics but you know we're not going to be able to peak behind the curtain.....
As you said, we can't really speak on specifics. I think a decent chunk of it has simply gone into continued development time due to setbacks. They wasted money with Ilfonic. They wasted money on early models for hangars and ships that aren't in use. There was waste, but it was on developing tech or assets that are no longer used. The Hornet has just been given its third polish pass. I think they grossly underestimated what the final cost would be due to those early missteps.

One thing we can say for sure is that it has gone into development one way or another. There's no way they would still be able to afford to pay their employees by this point if it didn't, even at moderate salaries for the industry.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,396
6,092
136
Common guys, 140 millions and no control over the cash spending by backers? :D

As a info about new kickstartert project. New game is on kickstarter. Developer wrote on their website: Enlisted website says that if the game isn't released for some reason, all funds will be returned to your Gaijin.net account, for use in other games like War Thunder or Star Conflict. A rep clarified that the first two Enlisted campaigns are coming out "no matter what," and that the funding campaign is strictly for future expansions. He also confirmed, however, that refunds will be offered if things go wrong (as they sometimes do) and the base game doesn't make it to release.

I guess still better to get money to gajin account then nothing...

source: pcgamer
http://www.pcgamer.com/new-ww2-shooter-promises-100-player-battles-that-are-not-sports-like/?utm_content=buffer74c73&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_pcgamerfb
thats great and all but again kickstarter/Early Access isn't meant to be an investment, its just not sold that way. Of course someone who purchased a $35 slot doesn't have say over how the money is spent.
Maybe I'm wrong but is't Gaijin a sizable company? The offer is nice but you could question just like SC is questioned about why are they selling it on kickstarter if they can fund it themselves or would they ever really offer a credit instead of just pushing out a piece of crap?
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,396
6,092
136
Do backers have control? Or did i misunderstood something?
You misunderstood. The simplest idea is it (Star Citizen) was sold early for a reduced price $30-$35 instead of $50-$60 launch price that was estimated at that time. You also got some bonuses like the life time insurance, ship upgrades and stuff like the fish tank that are purely cosmetic. They were pretty clear that none of the early benefits would be game changing.
There was no discussion about essentially owning a unit of stock for the kickstarter price. Owning stock would be a way to directly impact the games development.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,396
6,092
136
My english kinda sucks. I was talking about the process when backers can see for what was money spend. Not control over decision. One sec, need to google that word...Cant find the word... You know for example:
Like what was business expense for things?
I understand, no that's usually a stock ownership thing since stock is buying a portion of the company it may be a very, very small portion or a very large portion. US based companies need to send out accounting notices to investors (stock owners) and full financial reports to owners who request them however there may be a fee to pay for those.
The Star Citizen model when it started was like buying a prerelease. Buy now and get a discount plus some extra digital goodies (stuff in game)
To my knowledge Roberts Industry is a private company and does not sell stock.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,037
343
136
Yes, if they stop development they are not allowed to keep any money that has not already been spent.

Yes, like I already said, if they stop development they are supposed to offer refunds.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make since they have no plans to stop development.
Strangely not quite.. While I'm not sure how the kickstarter stuff would be covered, the new TOS now has a line in there giving them an out even if the game isn't made.

From the TOS Section VII. Fundraising and Pledges said:
For the avoidance of doubt, in consideration of RSI’s good faith efforts to develop, produce, and deliver the Game with the funds raised, you agree that any Pledge amounts applied against the Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost shall be non-refundable regardless of whether or not RSI is able to complete and deliver the Game and/or the pledge items. In the unlikely event that RSI is not able to deliver the Game and/or the pledge items, RSI agrees to refund any unearned portion of your Pledge, and to post an audited cost accounting on the Website to fully explain the use of the amounts paid for Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost. In consideration of the promises by RSI hereunder, you agree that you shall irrevocably waive any claim for refund of any Pledge that has been used for the Game Cost and Pledge Item Cost in accordance with the above.
I've never seen anyone cover themselves like that before, it could be nothing, but it's disturbing that a game company is putting stuff in their TOS in case they don't finish the game. If the people are happy playing the Alpha and are OK with the delay, and possibility that this Alpha is all they'll ever get, cool.. more power to them. I would feel bad for the people that gave money for pictures of ships that wouldn't see the light of day if the game didn't go past these Alpha builds..

This is the crap I'm talking about. People are making stuff up, then you have people coming in here and spreading it.

Thread should be locked as this is clearly a troll thread.

The only people still throwing shade are those who invested in the idea that SC was a scam, and are doing damage control as their fallacy is exposed.
You don't want people talking in the Star Citizen thread about any doubts the game will come out, or concerns on how the money is being spent. You jump on anyone speaking out against the game, bringing up low posts counts like that means anything, and you want this thread shut down? This thread is valid. DS made be a troll, but some people have major concerns about this game, others are interested in the drama that is the concerns. If anything if you don't like hearing negative things about SC or CR then maybe you shouldn't read the posts here.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,396
6,092
136
TOS (terms of service) agreements are just standard things with all sorts of crap that benefits the person who created the TOS. Read your wireless carriers TOS or apples TOS. You have no rights to anything. Hell there is a South Park episode devoted to apples TOS.
I'd wager every game company has similar verbiage, I wouldn't over analyze them and if its a concern wait for the game to release which is generally a smart move for any game.

Edit: I could easily imagine someone taking them to court because the game isn't finished due to a small graphics glitch or it doesn't work well with my driver package or even you showed images of shrimp and noodles, there is only rice and shrimp in the game at the food stations.
Its probably a good idea to cover that because when is a game done?
 
Last edited:

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,737
668
126
TOS (terms of service) agreements are just standard things with all sorts of crap that benefits the person who created the TOS. Read your wireless carriers TOS or apples TOS. You have no rights to anything. Hell there is a South Park episode devoted to apples TOS.
I'd wager every game company has similar verbiage, I wouldn't over analyze them and if its a concern wait for the game to release which is generally a smart move for any game.
Exactly. I've only backed Kickstarter projects in the hope that they would create something that might never exist without my patronage, and accepted that there was a good chance that they would fail. I don't bother to back anything as just a pre-order.

If you demand that Star Citizen has a 100% chance of shipping and that it is everything that you want from a game, then you should wait until after it ships to give them money.

If you demand a refund if they fail to ship, you're ignoring the fact that they need the money to try to make the game. If they fail, they will have already spent the money and the company will declare bankruptcy. There will be nothing to give back to you. So wait until after it ships to give them money.

If you can accept the possibility of failure or think you'll get your money's worth from playing with the alpha, then you can give them money before it ships.

If you follow those rules it doesn't matter if Derek Nutbar is broken-clock right for the first time or not.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,037
343
136
TOS (terms of service) agreements are just standard things with all sorts of crap that benefits the person who created the TOS. Read your wireless carriers TOS or apples TOS. You have no rights to anything. Hell there is a South Park episode devoted to apples TOS.
I'd wager every game company has similar verbiage, I wouldn't over analyze them and if its a concern wait for the game to release which is generally a smart move for any game.
I've never seen, nor heard of a game putting something in it's TOS to cover themselves in case the game never is completed.. of course I've never seen a game that creates and sells as DLC that hasn't come out yet either. I was pointing out that even if they don't finish the game, the people may not be able to get a refund
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,396
6,092
136
I've never seen, nor heard of a game putting something in it's TOS to cover themselves in case the game never is completed.. of course I've never seen a game that creates and sells as DLC that hasn't come out yet either. I was pointing out that even if they don't finish the game, the people may not be able to get a refund
Good observation too, terms of service generally don't favor the purchaser.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,737
668
126
I've never seen, nor heard of a game putting something in it's TOS to cover themselves in case the game never is completed.. of course I've never seen a game that creates and sells as DLC that hasn't come out yet either. I was pointing out that even if they don't finish the game, the people may not be able to get a refund
That's crowdfunding. If EA messed up one game they'd have money from all of their other games in the bank. If RSI fails it will be because they spent all of the money, so there is no money left.

The Kickstarter rules only really make sense to me for when someone takes the money and runs. Then it's fair to demand that they pay back the money.

For Grim Dawn, Divinity Original Sin, Shadowrun Returns if they had failed I would not have expected the developers to sell their house (assuming they owned one) to try to pay me back my $15.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,396
6,092
136
First apologies for diverting the thread
Anyone who has backed is welcome to join the Star Citizen AT Organization. We're casual and you can belong to multiple Orgs or Guilds in game. Just apply with the link and in the other Star Citizen game thread post your Star Citizen name so we know who you are.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/OLDSBAMENT

Anyone who hasn't backed is still welcome once you either back Star Citizen or purchase it if/when it releases.

I also want to thank everyone for a good adult discussion with minimal bombs thrown and keeping the discussion civil.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,037
343
136
That's crowdfunding. If EA messed up one game they'd have money from all of their other games in the bank. If RSI fails it will be because they spent all of the money, so there is no money left.

The Kickstarter rules only really make sense to me for when someone takes the money and runs. Then it's fair to demand that they pay back the money.

For Grim Dawn, Divinity Original Sin, Shadowrun Returns if they had failed I would not have expected the developers to sell their house (assuming they owned one) to try to pay me back my $15.
I keep going back and forth in my head on this.. I agree with you mostly. I completely agree with you in terms of Kickstarter. It's the post Kickstarter fundraising that I wonder about. At what point does it stop being crowdfunding and becomes a direct sale? At what point does it become fleecing? If I buy a concept ship based upon the promises of the company that they have the money to complete the game, but then don't deliver the game.. not under deliver the game's features, but fail to deliver the game, isn't that taking my money and running away with it? Normally one gets the money to make something and then makes it. I've never personally seen (there are possibly more out there in different fields) a game that continues to actively seek more funding like this game. The fact they're covering themselves in case they don't complete the game.. not just deliver a game without features promised, but just plain not deliver a game is odd to say the least.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,396
6,092
136
I keep going back and forth in my head on this.. I agree with you mostly. I completely agree with you in terms of Kickstarter. It's the post Kickstarter fundraising that I wonder about. At what point does it stop being crowdfunding and becomes a direct sale? At what point does it become fleecing? If I buy a concept ship based upon the promises of the company that they have the money to complete the game, but then don't deliver the game.. not under deliver the game's features, but fail to deliver the game, isn't that taking my money and running away with it? Normally one gets the money to make something and then makes it. I've never personally seen (there are possibly more out there in different fields) a game that continues to actively seek more funding like this game. The fact they're covering themselves in case they don't complete the game.. not just deliver a game without features promised, but just plain not deliver a game is odd to say the least.
Taking the money and running would certainly be unethical and likely lead to some kind of embezzling charge (embezzling is basically performing a trick to take someone's money for our non native English speakers)
In this event there would be something to recover but after court fees and time it wouldn't be much or worth the effort.
Its tough to tell when something is done. I generally look at it like gambling, the likely out come is usually something I don't want but sometimes its something great and other times its something exciting. The expression "the only way to win is not to play" is pretty accurate. I'd never say someone made a bad decision waiting for the game to release because everyone has different risk tolerance and expectations.
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
I generally look at it like gambling
That's how I look at early access and Kickstarter. I don't contribute any money that I would be upset if I never got anything for it. It's worked out well for me for the most part. A few times I've contributed to something that never materialized, but in general it's a positive experience.

Heck, at this point, the hours I've put into SC in AC and Crusader plus the entertainment following the development has more than made up for my contributions, and there's more to come. It's not for everyone, and if anyone has doubts I always preface it with the fact that they should wait until a retail product if they are in any way doubtful or would be upset that nothing beyond what we have today comes from it. I choose to let it speak for itself when/if it comes out, and until then I've been enjoying myself.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
59
91
Chris Roberts is already rich. Derek Smart wishes he was Chris Roberts. CR funded the launch of this project, and could already afford a nice house, a Porsche, and the ability to travel to europe and back.

Derek absolutely, on a personal level, wants CR to fail and burn.

The problem with saying 'is Derek Smart right' is that he has spewed lies, hate, and forcefully injected obfuscated doubt into the Star Citizen discussion at so many different points that his entire brand is tainted to the point it controls the debate.

Why make this about Derek Smart?

What's he right about? He has argued 100's of various points because he jumps on every possible thing he can.

Futuristic doors? Sure, let's skip past the idea that they're basic, actuated pocket doors with Star Citizen themed trim. Let's instead spin what was probably a thrifty, yet creative project to help foster a better environment into a rather nefarious, scandalous affair. That's what Derek does. He's on a mission to assassinate the character of the project.

So what was he right about? Do ask if he 'is right' and give a simple yes is to validate every little piece of misinformation he's ever spread. So he's right CIG is careless with money or he's right that Sandy's a pornstar?

Maybe thread shouldn't be locked, but DS should be kept out of it if the intentions of the thread are to appear honest.
 

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
4,709
526
126
To answer the ops question. No I don't think Derek Smart is 100% right. Its obvious he has a personal bias against RSI and the Star Citizen project and he's had it from the beginning. That alone makes me question him.
I do wonder what my $170 has gone toward over the past 4 years. I made my initial $30 pledge on October 15 2012 and have seen little that resembles an actual game. For the first year or two I got caught up in the hype and spent more money. I regret doing that now. Not that I haven't had fun exploring what has been released I just wish I would have waited for an actual game. I haven't had $170 worth of fun and I doubt I ever will.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,037
343
136
Chris Roberts is already rich. Derek Smart wishes he was Chris Roberts. CR funded the launch of this project, and could already afford a nice house, a Porsche, and the ability to travel to europe and back.

Derek absolutely, on a personal level, wants CR to fail and burn.

The problem with saying 'is Derek Smart right' is that he has spewed lies, hate, and forcefully injected obfuscated doubt into the Star Citizen discussion at so many different points that his entire brand is tainted to the point it controls the debate.

Why make this about Derek Smart?

What's he right about? He has argued 100's of various points because he jumps on every possible thing he can.

Futuristic doors? Sure, let's skip past the idea that they're basic, actuated pocket doors with Star Citizen themed trim. Let's instead spin what was probably a thrifty, yet creative project to help foster a better environment into a rather nefarious, scandalous affair. That's what Derek does. He's on a mission to assassinate the character of the project.

So what was he right about? Do ask if he 'is right' and give a simple yes is to validate every little piece of misinformation he's ever spread. So he's right CIG is careless with money or he's right that Sandy's a pornstar?

Maybe thread shouldn't be locked, but DS should be kept out of it if the intentions of the thread are to appear honest.
I"d agree with that. I'm not sure we can change the title of the thread, but I agree that DS is using the SC brand to further himself. I do still think should be a thread about the concerns of SC should exist, if for no other reason than to (hopefully) keep the SC game thread cleaner.
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
I do still think should be a thread about the concerns of SC should exist, if for no other reason than to (hopefully) keep the SC game thread cleaner.
I think most of us do. I have my own qualms with some of the decisions they make, but for the most part I just want to talk about the game itself and not the meta of the development process. Also, I usually choose to not engage with those attacking it since they're mostly uninformed about the details (and refuse to acknowledge them when presented) and just want to spout their opinion about a project they have no interest in. Civilized discussion is fine, but hyperbole just gets old.
 

Ranulf

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2001
1,588
133
106
For pete's sake, even before Derek Smart got on the SC criticism train, there was plenty of evidence that things weren't going well. Just selling virtual spaceships for a game that isn't released is enough to cause concern. SC fans can just not take any criticism of their god/game seriously. They are more blind than the old BC3k fans were. Enjoy your game fellas, wake me when it is actually playable, even just the squad 42 part.
 

antihelten

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,752
245
106
Strangely not quite.. While I'm not sure how the kickstarter stuff would be covered, the new TOS now has a line in there giving them an out even if the game isn't made.
The exact same "out" also exists in the kickstarter TOS, so there's really no difference between pledges made through kickstarter or directly to CIG with the new TOS.

Relevant parts of the Kickstarter TOS:

If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:

  • they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
  • they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
  • they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
  • they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
  • they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.
The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.
"Remaining funds" in the Kickstarter TOS is for all intents and purposes the exact same as "unearned pledge" in the CIG TOS.

In other words whether you're covered by the Kickstarter TOS or the CIG TOS, chances are that you will be entitled to a refund of absolutely nothing, since these kind of crowdfunded projects generally only fail if they run out of money, and thus have no remaining funds to refund. That's the risk of crowdfunding.

I've never seen anyone cover themselves like that before, it could be nothing, but it's disturbing that a game company is putting stuff in their TOS in case they don't finish the game.
As mentioned above the Kickstarter TOS has the exact same cover, so every single game crowdfunded through there is similar to Star Citizen in this regard. CIG including the same clause in their own TOS, is thus simply a continuation of the kickstarter TOS.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
59
91
For pete's sake, even before Derek Smart got on the SC criticism train, there was plenty of evidence that things weren't going well. Just selling virtual spaceships for a game that isn't released is enough to cause concern. SC fans can just not take any criticism of their god/game seriously. They are more blind than the old BC3k fans were. Enjoy your game fellas, wake me when it is actually playable, even just the squad 42 part.
Was there actually plenty of evidence though? What was it? DS has been banging at SC since the beginning. So it's not like there is some mountain of glaring evidence from the very beginning that the project is going to fail or be a scam. It's just not there, and I think you're kinda making it up. And doing so, it overlooks the legitimate concerns that are out there.

"selling virtual spaceships for a game that isn't released" would only cause concern if you didn't understand it. If I see a guy jumping from a bridge, it's a cause for concern IF I don't know he's bunging jumping. Concern about the virtual ships is moot if you actually take a moment and look at the reason they do it instead of assuming it's nefarious.

It's not that Star Citizen fans are 'blind' it's that they're sick of ignorant people that just want to cast stones and see things fail crapping all over something they've bought into.

WAKE UP!

I've been playing the alpha and Arena Commander for over a year now. It's not finished, of course, but your statement about 'wake me up' sounds like you're inferring it's vaporware, and that's not cool.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,537
79
91
For pete's sake, even before Derek Smart got on the SC criticism train, there was plenty of evidence that things weren't going well.
Like what? I don't think DS has provided any actual evidence of anything...just innuendo and speculation. Honestly, until the Kotaku article where CR admits they boggled the Ilfonic outsourcing, I don't think there is any evidence of anything. That's the first time there was actual evidence of anything "bad" regarding CIG, management, development, etc.

Just selling virtual spaceships for a game that isn't released is enough to cause concern.
It's definitely been a very successful method of raising capital. You can't argue with the results.....$140+ million. I don't have any concerns that people will not get what they pledged for. I do have concerns that their expectations won't be fully realized. That $1,600 Idris isn't going to be as bad ass/fun as people think. CIG has repeatedly stated: you're pledging these funds to build a video game. We're giving you a ship as a token of appreciation. I don't think a lot of backers understand that nuance. That's on them, not CIG.

SC fans can just not take any criticism of their god/game seriously. They are more blind than the old BC3k fans were.
I disagree. I think you're making a blanket accusation without any support. There are numerous ATers who not only take criticism of the game and development seriously, but provide their own. Just look through this thread or the other one. Hell, I rant about the most unimportant of minor details (jet intake warning labels on the Hornet....when it's not a jet engine). No one freaks out. We all know we speculatively gambled on a future product and no one (including CIG) even knows what that product is going to look like.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY