• 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 65 - 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
2,617
102
106
If you go back in this thread a couple of years ago we were debating if SQ42 would come out in 2017 that they had listed at the time. At this point I have major doubts 2021 will happen. It's also disturbing a bit that we've been at this for too many years. When you go back into the thread (which is a time suck that'll make you feel stupid for stuff you posted thinking you had a clue) this same song has been going on and on and on. I have to give CIG credit. They've somehow been at this for years and not really released a product.

Are we in Alpha yet? Two years ago I called what they released alpha and was told it wasn't even close to ready for alpha.
So true. I cringe at predictions and statements I've made in the past in this thread. Time is cruel teacher.

I still don't call the current build (3.7) an alpha. It's still more tech demo to me. But I'm no software programmer. I'm just a gamer.

Answer the Call: 2016 (nope), 2017 (nope), 2018 (nope), 2021 (?)…......…...…...
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,785
565
126
Amazon going to buy SC as a distressed asset and turn it into an Expanse mmo. I consider that a win.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,097
391
136
Amazon going to buy SC as a distressed asset and turn it into an Expanse mmo. I consider that a win.
I'm assuming that's just something you threw up there, but it does make me wonder what would happen to the backers from Kickstarter. I know that everyone that 'donated' in buying jpegs would be screwed but isn't the moment you fail to produce in kickstarter the moment you could be open legally? I've seen other cases where the product failed to ship and the people that did the Kickstarter had to pay the backers back. Not sure how long the statues of limitations are.
 

gorobei

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,168
313
126
I'm assuming that's just something you threw up there, but it does make me wonder what would happen to the backers from Kickstarter. I know that everyone that 'donated' in buying jpegs would be screwed but isn't the moment you fail to produce in kickstarter the moment you could be open legally? I've seen other cases where the product failed to ship and the people that did the Kickstarter had to pay the backers back. Not sure how long the statues of limitations are.
unless you only backed the KS and never downloaded a test version, you have no recourse.

all the subsequent jpg sales and playtesting Terms Of Agreement that they had to checkbox in order to buy a new ship or play the latest version revised the "product" rsi has to deliver. the Minimum Viable Product definition is about as cut down and janky feature-wise that roberts can run out of money and just release whatever they have at the moment and still satisfy the contract terms. the original KS terms were the only one with a hard delivery date that has long since passed.

it will be far from the dreams and fairydust visions the backers have been hoping for given all of robert's promises.

edit: this covers the SC part, i think squadron42 has some delivery requirements due to them selling off parts of it for investment money.
 
Last edited:

kn51

Senior member
Aug 16, 2012
659
92
91
It has a few years left in the tank. Gullible whales still out there. We still have Citcon with a giant jpeg sale. Repeat year after year.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,425
20,129
136
Now that is an interesting thought--when this thing folds and if some behemoth like Amazon picks it up, the massive poop-storm that will come from the original kickstarters and, especially, the whales, that might have no legal recourse to retain their very expensive desktop background art (as a game asset or, perhaps, otherwise).
 
Last edited:

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,617
102
106
unless you only backed the KS and never downloaded a test version, you have no recourse.

all the subsequent jpg sales and playtesting Terms Of Agreement that they had to checkbox in order to buy a new ship or play the latest version revised the "product" rsi has to deliver. the Minimum Viable Product definition is about as cut down and janky feature-wise that roberts can run out of money and just release whatever they have at the moment and still satisfy the contract terms. the original KS terms were the only one with a hard delivery date that has long since passed.

it will be far from the dreams and fairydust visions the backers have been hoping for given all of robert's promises.

edit: this covers the SC part, i think squadron42 has some delivery requirements due to them selling off parts of it for investment money.
The interesting thing (to me) is that the ToS that every backer has to acknowledge and agree to EVERY time they send CIG money specifically states that CIG retains all ownership of digital assets. The only right granted is the right to run their software on the backer's personal computer.

Legally, I think this means that no one is buying "ships" (which is laughable since CIG specifically calls certain events ship "sales"). They're given use of a ship as a reward for contributing money to be used to make the game. That distinction is huge because so many gullible backers think they're buying ships and that when CIG give them LTI (lifetime insurance), they can never lose the ship. But they can, because they never "owned" the ship in the first place. All of their hundreds (or thousands or tens of thousands) of dollars just got them the right to run the game code on their computer. Nothing more.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,617
102
106
In fewer words: SC is a scam.
I don't think SC is a scam. I think they're legitimately attempting to code a video game. But poor management/leadership coupled with deceptive marketing practices is not working in their favor.

To me, a scam requires intent. I don't think CIG ever intended to steal money from backers. They've just pissed most of it away with poor management decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clamum

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
12,863
1,778
126
The interesting thing (to me) is that the ToS that every backer has to acknowledge and agree to EVERY time they send CIG money specifically states that CIG retains all ownership of digital assets. The only right granted is the right to run their software on the backer's personal computer.

Legally, I think this means that no one is buying "ships" (which is laughable since CIG specifically calls certain events ship "sales"). They're given use of a ship as a reward for contributing money to be used to make the game. That distinction is huge because so many gullible backers think they're buying ships and that when CIG give them LTI (lifetime insurance), they can never lose the ship. But they can, because they never "owned" the ship in the first place. All of their hundreds (or thousands or tens of thousands) of dollars just got them the right to run the game code on their computer. Nothing more.
Well getting people to waste money on in game items they don't actually own is nothing new. Pay to win games, and before that ebay game items(remember the glory days of selling Diablo 2 and SWG items for hundreds/thousands on ebay?) have existed for quite a while. The new part is that they convinced people to do this without even making the game first.
 

Vivendi

Senior member
Nov 21, 2013
634
28
91
No one's posted into the other thread for a year. Tells you all you need to know really about the progress of SC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
5,439
900
126
I didn't say other wise man. Listen up because I don't wanna get in the middle of this I was just letting the poor fella know he was in the wrong thread for posting anything positive about Star Citizen. Ain't to many understanding types coming in here to post.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,097
391
136
I'm not sure why anyone cares if someone posts something positive in this thread. Most people here, myself included, have conceded that CIG has done some things that weren't all bad. The only time this starts to fall apart is when you have the cult like faithful start massive back and fourths. I actually appreciate someone pointing out stuff as I detest echo chambers.
 

Whitestar127

Senior member
Dec 2, 2011
397
24
81
Heheh, yeah there seems to be a huge amount of people going around with crystal balls in their pockets regarding this game.
Anyway, I have no idea what's going to happen with it, just hoping for the best. And I thought it was interesting that DF had done a video on it.

Thanks for the link, bbhaag, I had all but forgotten about it. Will post this video there as well. :)
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,617
102
106
Lately, this thread has more meaningful, more objective discussions, even if they're considered "negative" by some.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,617
102
106
Heheh, yeah there seems to be a huge amount of people going around with crystal balls in their pockets regarding this game.
That's true. And it's so ironic considering CIG was the company promising open development and plenty of honest communication with backers. If that were true, no one would need crystal balls.......
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,407
44
91
Heheh, yeah there seems to be a huge amount of people going around with crystal balls in their pockets regarding this game.
Well, I did not need a crystal ball to see that ship combat got worse and worse with each patch since 2.6 (including it, although, by comparison with the following patches, it was a masterpiece).

And for me ship combat was a very important aspect of this game.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,617
102
106
And for me ship combat was a very important aspect of this game.
The state of ship combat is a major red flag for this project. Some of the design choices have been very strange. Even before 2.6, it's felt like CIG are just throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks and what doesn't. They want Newtonian physics. They want WWII airplanes in space. They want gimbal assist. They want long time to kill. They don't want jousting. Ok, maybe a little jousting. They don't want turrets in space. Etc. etc. etc.

For such and important and core gameplay loop for both games, it's doesn't seem like they have a clue what they want or what direction to go.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
17,031
6,001
136
Ahhahahah just kill it, it's suffering.

Gotta say that there looks like there's a lot of . . . something game-like in there, but it's a buggy mess.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY