• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Star Citizen Development Discussion (Is Derek Smart Right?)

Page 61 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Triloby

Senior member
Mar 18, 2016
575
268
136
As of now? Nope.

Would've made much more sense to simply piss all over the $300 million dollars and then light it on fire.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,063
357
136
I might be confused, but I thought they said they finished the 'tools' years ago. Wouldn't that mean they should be pumping out planets and whatnot at this point?
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,558
82
91
As of now? Nope.

Would've made much more sense to simply piss all over the $300 million dollars and then light it on fire.
Despite there being nothing more than a buggy tech demo (after 6 years or 7 depending on when you start counting), CIG have developed some tools and tech that could find its way into other games in the future.

It might be a loss (Squadron 42 will determine that), but it won't be a complete loss.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,063
357
136
Despite there being nothing more than a buggy tech demo (after 6 years or 7 depending on when you start counting), CIG have developed some tools and tech that could find its way into other games in the future.

It might be a loss (Squadron 42 will determine that), but it won't be a complete loss.
That's great for CIG, but tools CIG could license to other games isn't what all SC's backers paid for.
 

Triloby

Senior member
Mar 18, 2016
575
268
136
Despite there being nothing more than a buggy tech demo (after 6 years or 7 depending on when you start counting), CIG have developed some tools and tech that could find its way into other games in the future.

It might be a loss (Squadron 42 will determine that), but it won't be a complete loss.
If it took CIG 6 to 7 years just to release an unfinished alpha of the game along with their "tools", it could easily take another 6 to 7 years before the game ever gets completed and given a commercial release.

Also, as @Skel said, I highly doubt SC's backers will be happy to know that their money was pissed away on creating a bunch of tools instead of being used to help build the game as intended.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,558
82
91
That's great for CIG, but tools CIG could license to other games isn't what all SC's backers paid for.
That's true, but the tech and tools developed by CIG would benefit gamers playing other games. And that tech would not have been developed with someone (CIG) at least trying to create it. The post alludes to the fact that $300 million has been completely wasted. It hasn't. CIG does have some talented developers and they have developed some impressive tech that could definitely make other future games better.

As a backer, this wouldn't necessarily make me happy. But it IS better than CR taking all the money and fleeing to Grand Cayman Island with it.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,558
82
91
If it took CIG 6 to 7 years just to release an unfinished alpha of the game along with their "tools", it could easily take another 6 to 7 years before the game ever gets completed and given a commercial release.

Also, as @Skel said, I highly doubt SC's backers will be happy to know that their money was pissed away on creating a bunch of tools instead of being used to help build the game as intended.
I never said SC backers would be happy. I just said the money has not been completely wasted.

And yes, it very well could take another 6 or 7 years for commercial release. However, I suspect the game will be "playable" much sooner than that. Some claim you can play the game today. I suppose you can, if you don't mind simple (and often bug-ridden) game loops. If you can ignore the bugs, there is plenty of pvp to be had, both in spaceships and on the ground.

But nothing I've seen has looked fun. That's the key ingredient missing from Star Citizen right now. Plenty of tech. Plenty of visuals. But not much looks fun.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,063
357
136
That's true, but the tech and tools developed by CIG would benefit gamers playing other games. And that tech would not have been developed with someone (CIG) at least trying to create it. The post alludes to the fact that $300 million has been completely wasted. It hasn't. CIG does have some talented developers and they have developed some impressive tech that could definitely make other future games better.

As a backer, this wouldn't necessarily make me happy. But it IS better than CR taking all the money and fleeing to Grand Cayman Island with it.
To me it'd be worse than nothing happening with it. In fact as he would be him taking all the money and fleeing with it. He's taking the money and using it to enrich himself without fulfilling what he was paid to do. This wouldn't be an issue if he fulfilled what people paid for. (note, he still might.. not likely at this point, but it's possible) but using the money for personal gain by making something else that can be licensed and not fulfilling what he was paid to do, is theft. I'm not sure how it's not... unless he fulfills what he was paid for. I've not heard one person who's said they were donating to CIG to do whatever because they think the company is that awesome. Everything I've seen is about CIG creating a game. Without that game, it's just them wasting people's money.

Sadly, according to the article that KMFJD linked to, it's something he's done before when he allegedly siphoned off money from his MS deal on the game studio and used it for making a movie.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
102,016
16,248
136
To me it'd be worse than nothing happening with it. In fact as he would be him taking all the money and fleeing with it. He's taking the money and using it to enrich himself without fulfilling what he was paid to do. This wouldn't be an issue if he fulfilled what people paid for. (note, he still might.. not likely at this point, but it's possible) but using the money for personal gain by making something else that can be licensed and not fulfilling what he was paid to do, is theft. I'm not sure how it's not... unless he fulfills what he was paid for. I've not heard one person who's said they were donating to CIG to do whatever because they think the company is that awesome. Everything I've seen is about CIG creating a game. Without that game, it's just them wasting people's money.

Sadly, according to the article that KMFJD linked to, it's something he's done before when he allegedly siphoned off money from his MS deal on the game studio and used it for making a movie.
well, I'm sure all of that is covered in whatever contract backers "signed" by clicking a little check box when they agreed to give some dude a pile of money for essentially nothing in return.

Honestly, I hope this crashes and burns and backers lose millions. I hope he flees the country with all of that money. Not because people lose money, but that they realize that this ridiculous trend to fund peoples' pet projects and failed businesses with their own money is completely preposterous. This model completely eliminates the market-driven need for competition and incentives for developers and entrepreneurs to back their product with actual work.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,558
82
91
well, I'm sure all of that is covered in whatever contract backers "signed" by clicking a little check box when they agreed to give some dude a pile of money for essentially nothing in return.

Honestly, I hope this crashes and burns and backers lose millions. I hope he flees the country with all of that money. Not because people lose money, but that they realize that this ridiculous trend to fund peoples' pet projects and failed businesses with their own money is completely preposterous. This model completely eliminates the market-driven need for competition and incentives for developers and entrepreneurs to back their product with actual work.
It is. As a backer who has actually read the terms of service (which every backer has to acknowledge and agree to with every transaction), I can tell you that the ONLY right transferred to the backer during the transaction is the right to run CIG's computer code on your personal computer. There is no ownership rights associated with digital assets. This surprises a lot of backers and I would estimate that 80% of SC backers refuse to believe it or accept it (the ostrich head in the sand approach) - they think they're "buying" spaceships. They're not.

I hate to burst your hopes, but backers have already lost millions. That money isn't going to be returned. Ever. And Chris Roberts isn't fleeing the country with all that money. Because it's mostly already spent on development. As the recent Forbes article points out (paraphrasing here): there is nothing fraudulent going on. But this project has been plagued by inefficient and bad management on a galactic scale. It's a pretty accurate conclusion. You might still have your hopes fulfilled with the project crashing and burning. There is still a ton of risk here (bad management being the #1 risk).

I don't really agree with the rest of your post. The best video game I've played in the last couple of years is Bards Tale IV. A completely crowd-funded game that simply would not exist without fans funding its development. Crowd funding has a valid place within the financing spectrum.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,063
357
136
well, I'm sure all of that is covered in whatever contract backers "signed" by clicking a little check box when they agreed to give some dude a pile of money for essentially nothing in return.

Honestly, I hope this crashes and burns and backers lose millions. I hope he flees the country with all of that money. Not because people lose money, but that they realize that this ridiculous trend to fund peoples' pet projects and failed businesses with their own money is completely preposterous. This model completely eliminates the market-driven need for competition and incentives for developers and entrepreneurs to back their product with actual work.
I've no doubt that CIG and CR are completely covered, legally at least. I'm just saying that's a really dick move. I'm sure there's nothing people can do legally, at least without costing a ton of money to try and fight it. I personally would still call it theft if someone took my money promising one thing and then made something else with it. More so if what they made became another business.
 

gorobei

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,063
216
106
It is. As a backer who has actually read the terms of service (which every backer has to acknowledge and agree to with every transaction), I can tell you that the ONLY right transferred to the backer during the transaction is the right to run CIG's computer code on your personal computer. There is no ownership rights associated with digital assets. This surprises a lot of backers and I would estimate that 80% of SC backers refuse to believe it or accept it (the ostrich head in the sand approach) - they think they're "buying" spaceships. They're not.

I hate to burst your hopes, but backers have already lost millions. That money isn't going to be returned. Ever. And Chris Roberts isn't fleeing the country with all that money. Because it's mostly already spent on development. As the recent Forbes article points out (paraphrasing here): there is nothing fraudulent going on. But this project has been plagued by inefficient and bad management on a galactic scale. It's a pretty accurate conclusion. You might still have your hopes fulfilled with the project crashing and burning. There is still a ton of risk here (bad management being the #1 risk).

I don't really agree with the rest of your post. The best video game I've played in the last couple of years is Bards Tale IV. A completely crowd-funded game that simply would not exist without fans funding its development. Crowd funding has a valid place within the financing spectrum.
pretty much this^.

it isnt fraud, it is a boondoggle. the money is being spent on dev salaries and stupid projects of CR and his wife. some incomplete buggy version will be released when the money runs out.

because of all the re-negotiated terms and agreements that came with the later ship sales, no one can really sue cig. unless you only bought during the kickstarter drive and never bought one of the later ships or downloaded the test builds, would you have standing to sue based on the original ks timeline and promises.

at this point with all the "concierge" sales, CR is mostly just milking the whales. anyone smart who bought the early packages should know better than to keep throwing money at it.


crowdfunding is fine. CR is just one of many incompetent devs (see curt schilling and 38studios). gullible backers exist everywhere (see rhode island inre to 38studios). as long as terms are clear and everyone understands what is promised. you could build in conventional gamedev milestone requirements into a crowdfunded project.
 

nakedfrog

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
49,945
2,665
126
I don't really agree with the rest of your post. The best video game I've played in the last couple of years is Bards Tale IV. A completely crowd-funded game that simply would not exist without fans funding its development. Crowd funding has a valid place within the financing spectrum.
I also backed BTIV and enjoyed it thoroughly. I've backed a number of music and video projects, and some non-digital gaming based ones... of the 30 projects I've backed since 2012, the only real sour note is the Equiso Android HDMI Android stick. Obviously the idea itself was sound, but they over-promised and under-delivered (tech wasn't realistically quite there in 2012-2013). But I did get my product in that case, and it kinda/sorta did what it was supposed to.
 

gorobei

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,063
216
106

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,558
82
91
At lot of backers are losing their minds over that article. They should be celebrating it. Yes, there are some really odd things in that article, and digging up personal history/dirt seems out of place for Forbes, but......

The article's conclusion is: Star Citizen isn't a fraud. The games are being made. It's just a project plagued by bad management.

All of that is accurate.

Most of the articles written about SC allude to it being a scam. Here's a major publication flat out saying it isn't.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
102,016
16,248
136
At lot of backers are losing their minds over that article. They should be celebrating it. Yes, there are some really odd things in that article, and digging up personal history/dirt seems out of place for Forbes, but......

The article's conclusion is: Star Citizen isn't a fraud. The games are being made. It's just a project plagued by bad management.

All of that is accurate.

Most of the articles written about SC allude to it being a scam. Here's a major publication flat out saying it isn't.
emotion + money = bad medicine. This is pretty much the only kind of reaction you can honestly expect from the long-time faithful backers at this point. I get it...any kind of (perceived) negative press probably isn't going to be considered rationally.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,558
82
91
emotion + money = bad medicine. This is pretty much the only kind of reaction you can honestly expect from the long-time faithful backers at this point. I get it...any kind of (perceived) negative press probably isn't going to be considered rationally.
Yup. You nailed it. When I'm bored, I like to go post in the SC forums. Specifically, I like to point out that people are irrational because they're emotionally invested. They're emotionally invested because they've spent large sums of money (often more than they reasonably should and/or can reasonably afford to).

When it comes to money, no one likes to be wrong. Thus people lose their ability to be objective.

The "Defenders of the Faith" (as I like to call them) get fired up when I point that out. But it's true.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,063
357
136
At lot of backers are losing their minds over that article. They should be celebrating it. Yes, there are some really odd things in that article, and digging up personal history/dirt seems out of place for Forbes, but......

The article's conclusion is: Star Citizen isn't a fraud. The games are being made. It's just a project plagued by bad management.

All of that is accurate.

Most of the articles written about SC allude to it being a scam. Here's a major publication flat out saying it isn't.
Is this the first major publication to really report on it? I would say this would effect any new money getting into this, but I'm still baffled over people sending thousands on a ship so what do I know?
 

gorobei

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,063
216
106
Is this the first major publication to really report on it? I would say this would effect any new money getting into this, but I'm still baffled over people sending thousands on a ship so what do I know?
the Escapist did a story about it back in 2014-15 ish about some of the horror stories from ex-employees, and cig took them to court over it. most of the coverage about sc in the mainstream press has been about funding totals, this is the first to actually look at how bad it is going. since forbes has a research and legal department, anything they print has to be accurate. the head in the sand/finger in the ears technique of rivethead's defenders of the faith requires that any bad news be able to be attacked/dismissed. forbes applying real world journalism standards to the reporting means it holds up in court, which is harder to attack.
most of the current fundraising is coming from the whales, some of the little fish/believers still buy the odd specialty ship on faith that the game will come out even if it is nowhere near what was promised.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS