The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Great post, I especially liked you documented everything with gifs and pictures :)
Someone should start writing down posts like these into a "Best of SC thread on FD forums" collection (or something like that) :D

Yes, very good read, would be nice to have such collection, but I guess thats too much of manual work..

Conclusion about v2.6: looks like v2.6 has the same issues as v2.5 plus new like pause "feature":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9_VasDcu-o
 
If they perma-ban and refuse refunds to enough backers they are home free, the naughty little scamps.

Yep.

What's made me go [uhh] about this apparent - CIG really need to confirm if they are doing this* - ban is that on reading the reddit thread the OP was in to Star Citizen for over $1000. This is not a $15 CS:GO or even a $60 AAA account, but an account that represents a serious amount of cash.

This strikes me as being very problematic, although I'm not really surprised as I absolutely loathe CIG's business model at the best of times.

Nothing about this whole situation is normal.

EDIT: * It appears that they have. Hoo boy. This will not end well.

FWIW I don't have any tolerance for cheaters, but CIG had best be sure that they have concrete proof of cheating or it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
 
Last edited:
Hardly anyone criticizing Star Citizen thinks it's an outright scam. At least not if they've been following SC for a while and aren't just drive by trolls. The scammy part is the constant marketing telling that the space game to end all such games is just around the corner (3.0 end of 2016, SQ42 at Citizencon, SQ42 footage in end of year livestream etc., not to mention obscenely suggestive concept sales without any game design documents to explain how any of it'll work, constant in engine "tech demos" without hardly any relation to actually implemented features). Thus creating a constant hype environment to keep collecting funding.

For the most part, I agree with this but there are two details that just rub me the wrong way and outright keep me from dismissing the scam notion completely. One is the utterly insane corporate structure they've constructed just to make a game and their consistent failure to do any of the required reporting on time. Yes, yes, tax breaks and all that, but you don't actually need over a dozen companies to get those — it just reeks of “fancy” accounting and liability shielding to an extent that I would only expect from someone who's trying to run away with a whole lot of cash.

The other is just the sheer wilfulness of the consistent outright lying that is going on from the company in its communication. I feel it has long past gone beyond mere obfuscation (which, in combination with the previous point would be bad enough), and into outright deception. The inability to keep any kind of deadline or promise; the strange appearance of very obvious (and very dishonest) ads masquerading as press coverage; the ever-changing narrative of what they're doing — it all adds up to a really bad image of trying to string people along. And again, sure, fine, they have hideously bad and wasteful management and would be embarrassed if that came out which would explain the felt need to cover that up, but have some common decency for crying out loud, especially if trying to bandy about the whole “open development” nonsense as if that changed anything.

Both can be explained away, but the combination and the persistence still nags at me. But that's just the company and the executives, most of which seem woefully unqualified for this kind of project so Hanlon's razor is fully applicable there. Even without that angle, though, the whole thing has grown to the point where there's so much money sloshing around from so many strange sources that I'd almost be shocked if there's no-one skimming a bit of somewhere in the process. That wouldn't be the same thing, admittedly, since that would just be a single person exploiting a weak organisation, rather than the company scamming its customers, but still…
 
FWIW I don't have any tolerance for cheaters, but CIG had best be sure that they have concrete proof of cheating or it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

There's a bunch of problems:
- failing to deliver a product to a customer and then refusing a refund.
- just how certain are CIG that the character name displayed in star citizen cannot be hacked by an end-user, and would someone from CIG testify in court as to the reliability of their netcode and graphics engine?

It is quite possible that 'getting caught cheating' will become the easiest way to get a full refund.
 
There's a bunch of problems:
- failing to deliver a product to a customer and then refusing a refund.
- just how certain are CIG that the character name displayed in star citizen cannot be hacked by an end-user, and would someone from CIG testify in court as to the reliability of their netcode and graphics engine?

It is quite possible that 'getting caught cheating' will become the easiest way to get a full refund.

Nope, it seems that cheaters are going to be banned with no refund. This is the conundrum. Someone with a 10k account gets banhammered incorrectly and I can't see that ending well.

This is on top of everything else!
 
exactly my question as well. I was under the assumption that the alpha is a timeframe to discover big issues within the game. The hacking video did just that. Also the game is so unfinished and heavily in development that the devs have every opportunity to close down said issues. I would think that the "testers" of the current alpha really would have access to all ships, unlimited cash, console commands and whatnot in order to be able to "test" it in earnest?

Well in a alpha where you need to buy the ships with real money in order to be able to test them in the first place.
 
Nope, it seems that cheaters are going to be banned with no refund. This is the conundrum. Someone with a 10k account gets banhammered incorrectly and I can't see that ending well.

This is on top of everything else!

But 'we will ship no product, and you will get no refund' is clearly not in-line with consumer law. It seems likely that if CIG genuinely 'perma-ban' then they will be legally obligated to provide a refund.
 
But 'we will ship no product, and you will get no refund' is clearly not in-line with consumer law. It seems likely that if CIG genuinely 'perma-ban' then they will be legally obligated to provide a refund.

Not shipping a completed product is one thing.

Banning an account without refund for ToS/licensing violations is something that already happens in gaming, as done by Valve, Blizzard, etc. This includes cheating and also removal of grey market Steam keys. As long as your ToS doesn't breach local laws you should be under their rules, but I seem to remember that there have been rumblings that this isn't always the case due to the whole "scroll through and click OK" thing. But I digress!

A question could be whether banning is legal in your jurisdiction but I am not sure where this has been tested if at all.

With the value of some CIG accounts I could see this becoming a big question, and one that possibly sets precedence.

1) A confirmed cheater is banned, no refund. What is the legal status of their account at this point? They will have violated ToS, so according to this contract they are bang to rights.
2) A non-cheater is banned, no refund. They will not have violated ToS but have lost access to their account. I could see a suing at this point.

It's part of the whole wider question re: licensing vs ownership...
 
Yep.

What's made me go [uhh] about this apparent - CIG really need to confirm if they are doing this* - ban is that on reading the reddit thread the OP was in to Star Citizen for over $1000. This is not a $15 CS:GO or even a $60 AAA account, but an account that represents a serious amount of cash.

This strikes me as being very problematic, although I'm not really surprised as I absolutely loathe CIG's business model at the best of times.

Nothing about this whole situation is normal.

EDIT: * It appears that they have. Hoo boy. This will not end well.

FWIW I don't have any tolerance for cheaters, but CIG had best be sure that they have concrete proof of cheating or it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I don't like multiplayer cheats and I have no real issue with them getting banned, single-player cheats don't matter who cares let them do what they like.

You all know there's a "but" coming by now though.

But (see you were right) I have an unstable internet connection and every time people start theory-crafting combat logging prevention and punishment for ED, their criteria for identifying a combat logger would always include me simply because of my connection. Their punishments range from an outright ban through being fined credits at a rate higher than can be made in the game. This wouldn't work for obvious reasons, and FD are not dumb enough to try.

Now take CIG with their accusations of corporate espionage, negative backer labels, attempts to illegally refuse refunds, scapegoating and terrible passive aggressive sulking at their customers when they are foolish enough to take a release date as serious or credible and point out it's been missed. They are plainly too dumb not to take this route, if not because they are awful at customer relations and avoiding dumb mistake but because they really really like everyone elses money. CIG are absolutely guaranteed to implement bans on the flimsiest of pretexts (without checking that players investment level) no matter what they claim, it's just how they are.

You are right it will end badly as soon as they do it to someone who stands to lose so much money that legal action would be the cheaper course of action.
 
I don't like multiplayer cheats and I have no real issue with them getting banned, single-player cheats don't matter who cares let them do what they like.

You all know there's a "but" coming by now though.

But (see you were right) I have an unstable internet connection and every time people start theory-crafting combat logging prevention and punishment for ED, their criteria for identifying a combat logger would always include me simply because of my connection. Their punishments range from an outright ban through being fined credits at a rate higher than can be made in the game. This wouldn't work for obvious reasons, and FD are not dumb enough to try.

Now take CIG with their accusations of corporate espionage, negative backer labels, attempts to illegally refuse refunds, scapegoating and terrible passive aggressive sulking at their customers when they are foolish enough to take a release date as serious or credible and point out it's been missed. They are plainly too dumb not to take this route, if not because they are awful at customer relations and avoiding dumb mistake but because they really really like everyone elses money. CIG are absolutely guaranteed to implement bans on the flimsiest of pretexts (without checking that players investment level) no matter what they claim, it's just how they are.

You are right it will end badly as soon as they do it to someone who stands to lose so much money that legal action would be the cheaper course of action.

Nonsense, plenty of ways to detect CL that do not include people with connectivity issues. Simple statistics.
 
Nonsense, plenty of ways to detect CL that do not include people with connectivity issues. Simple statistics.

If you read all the words in my post you see the phrase "people start theory-crafting combat logging prevention and punishment for ED", this means that I am referring to ludicrous player proposed detection methods such as counting the number of disconnects, not anything designed or implemented by FD.
 
Are people still playing Star Marine? - it doesn't interest me, and I haven't bothered with it, but it may be interesting to know if folks are still playing it.

Also, after two goes of Vanduul Swarm in AC after 2.6, I have not bothered to fire up the game again, although I do think the flight model has improved more to my preference, it still does not fire my imagination.
I may give the baby PU a try out later....

I believe someone a few pages back posted the concurrent player stats for Arena Commander since the apparent flight model "adjustments" and for Star Marine since 2.6 went live.... And what could be gathered from them is that after an initial spike in activity due to 2.6 being new and all, hardly *anyone* was playing either mode for more than a couple of hours and that player numbers fell off the proverbial cliff as a result.

Not exactly the sorts of figures that indicate just how much of a rip-roaring romp of a "game" Star Citizen/Star Marine/Arena Commander is going to be, is it?
 
Nonsense, plenty of ways to detect CL that do not include people with connectivity issues. Simple statistics.

I've always wondered how would they detect someone who is logging but also makes "random" disconnects when they are not in combat - which wouldn't be too difficult for someone that bothered about logging and covering their tracks..

Regarding the SC cheating no refund issue I can't see even CIG being that stupid to try and use cheating as a wholesale means of avoiding refunds for high value backers - if that's what people are suggesting.

My guess is that someone thought it would be a quick PR win following a year of back to back PR disasters especially given everyone knows how uppity people get about cheating.

I wouldn't be surprised though if it backfires spectacularly if they ban the wrong person who decides to go legal (and I've no doubt they'd find financial support from somewher if needed) - would CIG risk going to court with all the missed dates and unfulfilled stuff from their side - or would they just cave like the other refunds?

Also lol at CR managing another dropped ball comment with SQ42 "probably" on the first day back at work - almost on a par with his original MVP announcement!
 
Last edited:
My cynicism says that they are trying to quickly make the existing environment as player friendly as possible to boost the perception of the alpha as a playable 'game'.
Although perhaps it is simply another example of poor management of the situation.

Who knows.

c7NJRa2.gif
 
It's like a crowdfunding project promising to build a shiny hypercar from the backers' money within two years, collecting all the money constantly, but instead using it to build a shabby compact car and take six years for it instead. The disconnection is surreal and it's even more surreal how many people do not even see it (yet!).

Here's a handy, real life example that ties in to what you describe very nicely...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_Motor_Car_Corporation

http://jalopnik.com/murder-transsexuals-and-the-price-is-right-the-story-464820740

http://unsolved.com/archives/elizabeth-carmichael

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, very good read, would be nice to have such collection, but I guess thats too much of manual work..

Conclusion about v2.6: looks like v2.6 has the same issues as v2.5 plus new like pause "feature":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9_VasDcu-o

See, this is the thing that folks like certain hyper optimistic posters on here seem to forget about this whole Lumberyard, is it a new engine switch, isn't it new engine switch thing...

Even if they switch to a new engine, they still have the code from the previous iteration that they'll have to work into the new branch at some point... and as we've seen already numerous times from CIG, whenever they've iterated onto a new version of code, the old bugs from before either get coded out (yay!), stick around (oh no!) or, most worryingly, evolve into entirely NEW bugs (holy ****!) that cause all manner of problems for the coders to resolve.
 
I believe someone a few pages back posted the concurrent player stats for Arena Commander since the apparent flight model "adjustments" and for Star Marine since 2.6 went live.... And what could be gathered from them is that after an initial spike in activity due to 2.6 being new and all, hardly *anyone* was playing either mode for more than a couple of hours and that player numbers fell off the proverbial cliff as a result.

Not exactly the sorts of figures that indicate just how much of a rip-roaring romp of a "game" Star Citizen/Star Marine/Arena Commander is going to be, is it?

Thanks, this thread moves so fast sometimes, I miss large portions of it.
 
Here is an excellent effort post by the SA forum poster, "Rubber Johnny" (stop giggling at the back Timothy!), which echoes a lot of my own thoughts on what happened with SQ42 last year and why it went from "definitely, absolutely going to be coming out in 2016!", to CIG not being able to show one second of actual gameplay footage, nor even a teaser demo, for close on the second year in a row.

I have a theory that the SQ42 Vertical Slice was cancelled due to Infinite Warfare showing them up.

Within two months they went from "nearly done" to contradicting themselves about the nature of what the demo would even be. There's a big thing that happened in those two months and it's the launch of Infinite Warfare. A blockbuster military scifi AAA dogfighting and on foot combat game that simulates downtime between missions in your spaceship carrier and lets you freely choose which missions to do across a whole Star System, and performance-captured Game of Thrones characters, i.e exactly what SQ42 is supposed to be. It even does the more open-freeform combat situations that SQ42 is supposed to with your character movement, hacking into bots to turn them to your side, calling in air support, using turrets, even hijacking mechs, all of which is more dynamic than Star Marine combat.

Despite backers insisting SC will be insanely polished, unlike those evil publisher games, they've never put out anything polished for anyone to judge this, and I genuinely think they can't, even their pitch videos passed off as progress are buggy messes. IW is actually insanely polished and good looking, it has probably the most stunning space vistas of any released game and faces that don't look like they're melting.

So I think they realised their grand showing was crap compared to games actually released and chickened out, Chris then turns up to the Anniversary show announcing they're redoing the Vanduul and all their ships because they're not fidelitous enough, so they're probably redoing everything to try and stay on the bleeding edge. They can't convince anyone with gameplay, so they have to do so with graphics.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom