What you mean is:
Original Scope of SC >>> Current Scope of SC. We've already been through that, however on the case exemplified, their liability to VR remains, and they re-stated it as of recently.
Refactoring it you mean
What you mean is:
Original Scope of SC >>> Current Scope of SC. We've already been through that, however on the case exemplified, their liability to VR remains, and they re-stated it as of recently.
Refactoring it you meanagain, one more time for the road Ay blink blink.
Oh, i was referring to the actual ship boarding mechanic, disabling ships on space, being able to dock your ship upon another to board them, that's the mechanic that is coming later, is not on SC yet.
It's the truth however, much of the refactoring came from what happened to the original scope, one bigger game but with the need to scrap a lot done till then to reach it.
I wouldn't know for sure. The actual boarding ship > ship, with the docks and so on, that's not in-game, this comes with the e-war (able to completely disable a ship), and if you saw the Piping Systems video of stations, it's also part of mechanics used on boarding (hacking doors, switches, destruction, messing with inner atmosphere, disabling gravity, etc...).What boarding was CR talking about then? I thought it was this.
I think majority of criticism leveled at CIG is a knee jerk reaction to their bold claims: BDSSE, realistic physics, first person universe, saviour of PC gaming and all that, along with comparisons of what SC will be (or is supposed to be) to what ED and other games are right now.
What boarding was CR talking about then? I thought it was this.
I wouldn't know for sure. The actual boarding ship > ship, with the docks and so on, that's not in-game, this comes with the e-war (able to completely disable a ship), and if you saw the Piping Systems video of stations, it's also part of mechanics used on boarding (hacking doors, switches, destruction, messing with inner atmosphere, disabling gravity, etc...).
"Ben Lesnick, developer" said all they have to do for VR is turn on the switch or something at the end. I mean, he should know. having never done any VR software at any point in his career, having never attended any VR conferences, having never coded anything in any engine for VR. He just knows.
It's so horrible to compare two space sims, I know - but what a contrast. Both companies have employees massively keen on VR, who recognize what a disruptive technology it is and how it brings the ultimate in immersion. Both companies have some smart people on their teams! Frontier staff are really keen on VR despite it being the dawn of the DK1. Braben lets them add it in early on and it brings tons of press and a surprisingly large amount of the playerbase. They make sure things are optimized enough to work in VR and don't make drastically stupid animation or camera decisions. They are there at the launch of consumer VR.
Roberts talks about VR, raises money on VR, dodges it for YEARS on end and makes countless decisions diametrically opposed to a good VR experience. He's got employees too who are keen to do it. What does he do? Ignores them, lets it slide, misses his opportunity to ride the wave... makes more excuses, claims the tech isn't ready yet, reprioritizes, deprioritizes, refactors the reprioritization, tells drunk fans at Bar Citizen that it needs to be sunglasses first. VR enthusiast and CIG employee Jon Dadley goes off to do VR experiences on the side as his twitter feed announces he's a VR dev by night and a CIG employee by day. It doesn't occur to anyone to perhaps let him be a CIG VR dev and maybe, I dunno, think about how things will work in VR and implement basic functionality for Rift and Vive now that they are out and better HMDs and better cards to drive them are around the corner, certainly out before SC... But, no! Further excuses are made, magic Germans are invoked but in this case, useless. "Ben Lesnick, developer" assures us it's all fine and easy to do.
Uh huh.
It stills annoy me slightly that we seeing teams go straight to trying to do a fully fledged PC game instead of getting their together first and producing a one or two games on Android and iOS first. This is what hello world have done. It seems far to many people are going from I have a dream to build the next GTA to early access rather I have a dream to build the next Final Fantasy type game but let build a simple puzzle game for the iphone first, then may be you build up from there aim to build a new FF type game.
An yes I know the temptation to want to go from barely being able to cruel to trying to beat Usain Bolt in the 100 meters who need to learn to walk first [big grin]
In the interests of managing expectations and scope creep I'd like to point out that none of this is implemented or likely at this stage.
This mechanics are NOT scope creep, there's actual fluff that is scope creep, this one is not fluff over gameplay.
If they are already, and they shown this on the Piping System videos, displaying the mechanics that allows us to: disable gravity of a space, mess with its atmosphere (as breaking a window), hacking terminals, or by force opening a door, and so on...
Then they are already working on the kind of mechanics that were also described for the Ship Boarding mechanic, over ofc what's set for the Space Stations, so it's actively undergoing development.
When the SC saga finishes I'll miss Major Tom's videos, dude is hilarious.
So in other words we should just take CIG's word that all this stuff is not just another over-hyped mechanic that will be either dropped, terrible or was already in the game all along.
Based on CIG's track record it'll never happen.
*Mod hat off*
I had a look, but the nature of the exemptions granted to the three UK companies makes reading anything helpful into the accounts very difficult indeed, sorry.
The rules on exemptions are if a company meets two of the following it's exempt (s477 of the Companies Act 2006):
- an annual turnover of no more than £6.5 million
- assets worth no more than £3.26 million
- 50 or fewer employees on average
CIG Ltd owns Foundry 42 Limited and Roberts Space Industries International Limited. These companies are exempt as they are subsidiaries of CIG, and the group aggregate falls below the thresholds above.
Chris Roberts personally owns 85% of CIG, with the 15% balance split between Erin (10%) and Freyermuth (5%).
The latter data is from the Annual Return.
Financial Statements for the 31 December 2015 will be due by 30 September 2016. There is no indication there of any change to the company's filing status.
These are three UK companies (LLCs as you call them). The UK companies are not owned by a US parent company they are owned by a US citizen. That's irrelevant for the company itself. Soopyyy's question was more 'why have three UK companies?' and i can't answer that. With full disclosure (which it would appear they are not required to do) I may be able to figure it out - but Government Grants don't require a new corporate entity for each grant.
Having three companies would give limitation of liability between them. By that I mean if Foundry 42 Ltd (UK Co) was sued to oblivion then CIG Ltd (UK Co) would not be affected beyond the value of its investment dropping to £0.
As I said there is group relief for shunting tax losses around a group, but if you had one UK company the losses would already be netted off, so there's no advantage there I can easily see. There may be something I've not thought of, and there must be a reason to do it.
I'm not even sure where they come off calling their releases Alpha's. That implies some sort of cohesive game...
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Pure fabrication.