- Apr 11, 2001
Yeah, but one other thing to realize, Crytek is attempting to get the entire case dismissed now (however they want the rights to refile). They also have now stated that they have not in fact received any information from CIG about the release date of Squadron 42, and do not know if it will be released soon or not, contrary to what the previously implied in their initial filing that they received such information during discovery.
so the lawyers are also making the game? How would the lawsuit slow the game making down for the last (looks at notes) 9 years?This is yet another nothing-burger in the saga of this game. A complete waste of time and expense over sour grapes, costing us, the people who may have spent money to fund the development of this game, all the lost time spent dealing with the lawsuit instead of having many of those people working on getting the game released.
lol. the game is preposterously over "budget" for whatever it was supposed to be, with well more than enough cash available from the gaslit whales to fund this thing. There is no money being pulled from game development to deal with the lawsuit.By taking fees from a cash pool that (presumably) should instead have been spent on game development.
Yeah it's a scam, but the irony here is that the scammed are just losing more money thanks to Crytek trying (and failing) to sue for damages. There is an alpha, believe it or not. It looked pretty terrible last time I examined it. Buggy and weird. So someone really is working on something game-like.lawsuits are mandatory at this point.
There are people out there who are getting entertained by this code and are willing to call it a "game" and "play" it - today.Yeah it's a scam, but the irony here is that the scammed are just losing more money thanks to Crytek trying (and failing) to sue for damages. There is an alpha, believe it or not. It looked pretty terrible last time I examined it. Buggy and weird. So someone really is working on something game-like.
Removing opinions about the games development because that is a totally separate concept.lol. the game is preposterously over "budget" for whatever it was supposed to be, with well more than enough cash available from the gaslit whales to fund this thing. There is no money being pulled from game development to deal with the lawsuit.
It was a grift from the beginning, plain and simple. The primary tool that consumers have to deal with grifting at the corporate level is tort. This was inevitable, and completely necessary. There is no room for complaining about how this is playing out at this point, as it otherwise just encourages further scammery from more people like Chris Roberts. Even if it is all just gross incompetence and hubris, the result is the same, and lawsuits are mandatory at this point.
Pretty much same here. I load it up once or twice a year since the beginning. Every time it runs better with more “stuff” or “detail”There are people out there who are getting entertained by this code and are willing to call it a "game" and "play" it - today.
I watch from afar (haven't run it since 2.6 many years ago). It has the appearances of a beautiful, incredibly tedious and boring "game". Time will tell what it evolves into, but it most definitely is being worked on and advanced.
When I first discovered SC it was on this forum right after I read about how 38 studios fell apart and ended up costing people a lot of money. I was jumped all over when I compared the two. I freely admit I know f&*k all about how to make games. When I do read stuff like this from the article Master Shortlickens posted I do wonder what the norm is..
I know, I know.. no one has ever attempted blah blah blah.. I just have to personally wonder at what point is one able to throw up a flag of concern without being told this is normal.Normally, videogames take two to four years to build; five years is considered worryingly long.
don’t get me wrong, I like early access. I like taking risks.Didn't PubG start off as early access? It did alright . . .
early access isn't taking a risk--rather, it moves the risk from where it should rightfully belong (the developers) and on to the potential users.don’t get me wrong, I like early access. I like taking risks.
I believe there are some great games sold as early access.
some have worked out great for me, some haven’t or became a game I wasn’t interested in, one gave up before finishing.
what I am saying is if you don’t like risks or expect a finished game then wait for the game to be completed.
Counter point is big budget games have become all the same imo, every shooter is a call of duty clone, every mmo is a Warcraft clone, big budget games simply do not take any risks and it shows with pretty graphics & bland game play.early access isn't taking a risk--rather, it moves the risk from where it should rightfully belong (the developers) and on to the potential users.
This is a garbage model. Obviously, people seem to want that because they keep paying for garbage and let shady devs get away with what used to be called theft (now it's just "a disruptive business model!" for *cough* millenials *cough*), but what they claim is better certainly doesn't stop them from complaining when it disappoints them. And yes, one is allowed to be disappointed when things don't work out, but I see no license to complain and seek legal action against a company that you have willingly allowed to steal from you.
Well, I call it theft, anyway.
Nahh. No Man's Sky is still trundling along, and it apparently is a much better game now with updates. Star Citizen is way off the radar of a lot of people.This game in all likelihood will kill the space game genre(if its not dead already).
I don't think the space game genre is dead. On the contrary, it's enjoying a bit of a rebirth, despite Star Citizen. Smaller studios are having some success with space games (look at Rebel Galaxy) and I think that's going to continue into the future. The Mandalorian, The Expanse, etc. tv shows certainly aren't hurting that.This game in all likelihood will kill the space game genre(if its not dead already).
How in the world are they going to balance ships costing $10K+ with your "standard" $10-100 variants. Is it all cosmetic?
Who are all these whales funding this game? Has this game become a cult? When the campaign turns out to be a mediocre mess, and online being a complete flop what will be consequence? Surely something must change legally regarding crowdfunding.
This guy is trying to fast track and buy himself a multi-billion dollar franchise. Rockstar games took years to create GTA and Red Dead Redemption, it took them several iterations get it right. We think this guy can do it with his track record? Chris Roberts is not Leslie Benzies or Dan and Sam Houser.