The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
[...]it bothersome to try and discuss SC when obvious ED fans keep telling us we are foolish to spend money on SC[...]
Just want to note that most people here aren't against spending money on SC. I, like others, have money in the game and look forward to it when and if it releases. What I *do* think is foolish is continuing to throw money at CIG beyond that initial 'investment'. Everything that comes out of CIG smacks of entitlement to me -- they feel like they are entitled to your money, and that rather than it being a bond of trust, they can do what they please with it. If you get a game at the end of it, you should consider yourselves lucky. There's no contrition when they say they might have to release an MVP. They aren't saying sorry. They're really just saying "if you don't *want* just the MVP, give us more money". If you request a refund, they don't say "we're really sorry that you feel this way and we're making a concerted effort to deliver the product that you paid for", they say "won't you please think of the children who are going to starve because you took money from their pockets" or "the EULA you agreed to states no refunds, tough luck".

These arguments don't hold sway when they're treating their sales like a product (e.g. charging VAT). If you press them hard enough you'll get your refund, because they know that (at least in places like the EU) they can claim it's a donation as much as they like, but no court will accept that argument. The worrying thing is that they clearly have no contingency for refunds. The level of risk for anyone "investing" in this project is huge, and the directors at CIG share none of that risk. CR hasn't put his house on the line to deliver this game (as far as I know). If it goes belly-up, he'll walk away with a battered reputation and not much other damage, whereas thousands of backers will be left with holes in their wallets plugged only with fidelicious JPEGs and wistful regret.

Finally, just to reiterate. I have no plans to refund my pledge. I've put in what I think is reasonable for the product as specified at the start of the project. If CIG don't have enough money to deliver on their promises, despite at least twice claiming the game was fully funded, then that's on them.
 
There's also nothing wrong with pushing back deadlines to get something done right.

I have no problem with Elite fans saying ED is the holy grail and expressing their love of ED.

I however have a problem when those same people try and and nitpick terms SC enthusiasts use and generally act passive aggressively rather than live and let live. Just go back one page from here in this thread and you can see atleast two people jumping down SC enthusiast throats.

I wont name names but it's not you or the last few posters. ;)


I understand the frustrations though, I really want to see Squadron 42 come to life before I die of old age!

If you seriously can't tell the difference between the development of SC and ... well ANY other videogame that has been released- I really can't express it better.
 
It's primary theme because we have nothing else to go on on facts.

Trust me I would better read what kind of real economy system CIG might cook up for SC 3.0 Alpha. Because that's always interests me in such games like this.

But they don't even share those details, despite they should have been nailed down ages ago.

Remember that board game buddy was making to figure out economy..then turned around and sold his game (paid for seemingly by early pledges given it was originally cited as being a tool that would translate to code) on KS...using CR and SG as characters?

I do...I cringed.
 
Remember that board game buddy was making to figure out economy..then turned around and sold his game (paid for seemingly by early pledges given it was originally cited as being a tool that would translate to code) on KS...using CR and SG as characters?

I do...I cringed.

To be fair, that whole boardgame deal played an important role in exposing the habitual Archering going on at CIG (and in turning the name Archer into a verb), so some good came out of it.
 
Last edited:
A Guide To Managing Your Expectations https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5sibu1/star_citizen_guide_managing_expectations/

This one made me laugh
You may expect your ship to work, this is wrong.

You may expect your gun to work, this is wrong.

You may expect your character to not phase through solid objects, this is wrong.

You may expect the game to have content by now, this is wrong.

You may expect CIG to create a delta patcher after 5 years, this is also wrong.

Please manage your expectations.
 
To be fair, that whole boardgame deal played an important role in exposing the habitual Archering going on at CIG (and in turning the name Archer into a verb), so some good came out of it.

Oh jeez how could I have overlooked that! Clearly I'm too salty ;)

Seriously though I was like "what the hell" when that very board game they said they were developing to use and model the virtual economy got turned into a KS...like what the hell?

Anyway, the 2.6.1 gameplay trailer....hard to look at as well and not cringe by the text pop ups.

I do enjoy the new ship load out interface. Should have skipped from that first iteration to this one, habingnit im 2D would be much simpler but this isn't a terrible alternative.

Ps: my snark comes from the lack of consistent narrative coming out of CR specifically/marketing.

I know the devs are working breakneck to try to get a top the Olympus Mons size tech debt CR has dug them into.
 
I would recommend looking at star citizen's youtube channel sorted by oldest to newest.
And see the progress they have made.

2013:
[video=youtube;Za5lR7yMqaE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5lR7yMqaE[/video]
2014:
[video=youtube;yaq7LUOZIkI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaq7LUOZIkI[/video]
2015:
[video=youtube;Z2YMlnn4Ngk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YMlnn4Ngk[/video]
(coming soon)
2016:
[video=youtube;GucYhhLwIxg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucYhhLwIxg[/video]

and by googling i got the progress from 2011 to 2012.
[video=youtube;7vhRQPhL1YU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL1YU[/video]


Its a shame that the progress they made never made it into the game.
 
Last edited:
Seriously though I was like "what the hell" when that very board game they said they were developing to use and model the virtual economy got turned into a KS...like what the hell?

That part, I'm actually somewhat ok with. That kind of mechanics/dynamics prototyping and debugging is something that boardgames do spectacularly well, so it's a pretty clever way to go. And if it's interesting enough in its own right, it might even be worth a separate release, where it kind of makes sense to try to cover the printing costs with a KS.

Really, the thing that makes it silly was that, for one, any connection with how the SC economy was supposed to work was completely opaque since nothing about it had really been explained, and that this is SC we're talking about, where they were already overfunded out the wazoo and should be able to cover those printing costs by just replacing a couple of their low-function boutique office chairs with a some proper furniture.
 
That part, I'm actually somewhat ok with. That kind of mechanics/dynamics prototyping and debugging is something that boardgames do spectacularly well, so it's a pretty clever way to go. And if it's interesting enough in its own right, it might even be worth a separate release, where it kind of makes sense to try to cover the printing costs with a KS.

Really, the thing that makes it silly was that, for one, any connection with how the SC economy was supposed to work was completely opaque since nothing about it had really been explained, and that this is SC we're talking about, where they were already overfunded out the wazoo and should be able to cover those printing costs by just replacing a couple of their low-function boutique office chairs with a some proper furniture.

I fully agree with it being a great prototyping way of doing things. Yet we heard nothing as a result of said progress, only that it's being sold now as a KS game...after money was diverted from SC KS to concept it (most likely the costs to build it a legitimate business expense).

I don't think it's outright "wrong" but it did rub me the wrong way given the lack of progress on the economy and turning a backer funded prototype into a separate capital venture.

Not saying it is wrong just my interpretation of it. If that was the only thing I felt was somewhat unethical in company practice I probably would have left it alone.
 
Last edited:
Wait, I must have lost it- what boardgame?!

Oof.

A long time ago, in a kickstarter far far away, CIG mentioned that they were going to use a boardgame as a prototype for how the in-game economy was going to work. That was a neat idea, but not much more was mentioned of it and the years passed. Then all of a sudden, there were rumblings that an SC-connected boardgame — presumably the economy one they had been talking about earlier — was coming out, and what eventually showed up was Star Traders.

It was really a reprint of a much older game made by Origin alumnus David Ladyman from his time at SJG (before he went to write manuals for Chris' games at Origin), and since there weren't any real details about how the SC economy was supposed to work, it still seemed entirely possible that they had just figured they could build in on the basic ideas of ST. To aid him, he borrowed CIG concept artist Ryan Archer and got to work.

When the KS launched, with Chris and Sandi being a large part of the project PR, it quickly became apparent that much of the game “art” was just Archer finding images on google and applying photoshop filters to them without any attribution to the original artist. For concept work, that's one thing — for PR art and art for inclusion in a finalised commercial product, it's a no-no. So people started looking closer and found that, not just here, but in almost everything he had done for CIG as well, pretty much every last element could be easily identified and sourced from original work on DeviantArt and similar portfolio sites. Much abuse and swearing happened, and some half-hearted shows of contrition ensued, excusing the IP theft with not checking the work very closely… and then “fixing” it by just applying more PS filters to the same art so it was harder to spot.
 
I'm half convinced the feature creep in SC has (at least partly) been used to obfuscate the fact that they weren't going to hit their original deadlines in the first place. It makes a very convenient excuse, provided you can keep the backers credulous enough to keep paying.

Bare in mind they still haven't come anywhere near completing their original feature set, never mind all the stuff they added later, and Squadron 42's original release date was 2014.

What?!? Developers don't do that...

*discreetly shoves exciting filler under a rug*

I once had a huge site redesign and my team was falling behind on some pretty tough issues...so, since I had extra time waiting, I drew up a design to bolt-on a social network. Convinced a VP it was the best thing to have since sliced bread (it was 2010, when every corporate type was easily swayed by social media jargon). On the back end, it was simple enough to pull a few 3rd party tools together and make it work, but we used every bit of it as an excuse to give my devs more time to rewrite the integration code, without heat from management.
 
Oof.

A long time ago, in a kickstarter far far away, CIG mentioned that they were going to use a boardgame as a prototype for how the in-game economy was going to work. That was a neat idea, but not much more was mentioned of it and the years passed. Then all of a sudden, there were rumblings that an SC-connected boardgame — presumably the economy one they had been talking about earlier — was coming out, and what eventually showed up was Star Traders.

It was really a reprint of a much older game made by Origin alumnus David Ladyman from his time at SJG (before he went to write manuals for Chris' games at Origin), and since there weren't any real details about how the SC economy was supposed to work, it still seemed entirely possible that they had just figured they could build in on the basic ideas of ST. To aid him, he borrowed CIG concept artist Ryan Archer and got to work.

When the KS launched, with Chris and Sandi being a large part of the project PR, it quickly became apparent that much of the game “art” was just Archer finding images on google and applying photoshop filters to them without any attribution to the original artist. For concept work, that's one thing — for PR art and art for inclusion in a finalised commercial product, it's a no-no. So people started looking closer and found that, not just here, but in almost everything he had done for CIG as well, pretty much every last element could be easily identified and sourced from original work on DeviantArt and similar portfolio sites. Much abuse and swearing happened, and some half-hearted shows of contrition ensued, excusing the IP theft with not checking the work very closely… and then “fixing” it by just applying more PS filters to the same art so it was harder to spot.

*Facepalm* It's tainted- I'm telling you. Like some reverse King Midas everytihng that touches SC becomes tainted.
 
I would recommend looking at star citizen's youtube channel sorted by oldest to newest.
And see the progress they have made.

2013:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5lR7yMqaE
2014:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaq7LUOZIkI
2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YMlnn4Ngk
(coming soon)
2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucYhhLwIxg

and by googling i got the progress from 2011 to 2012.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL1YU


Its a shame that the progress they made never made it into the game.

Their progress is reversed. We saw the most in 2012 GDC video :D
 
Its a shame that the progress they made never made it into the game.
That's because their "progress" is just smoke and mirrors, I don't know what else to call it other than a confidence trick at this point.

They've lied repeatedly about the state of the project. Not just made mistakes, not just had to adapt to failures, but actually lied about how much they have working. Why the hell would anyone still believe anything they say? Yet we're continually expected to give them the benefit of doubt, and it's implied that anyone who points out their mendacity has some kind of nefarious FUDing agenda.
 
Last edited:
That's because their "progress" is just smoke and mirrors, I don't know what else to call it other than a confidence trick at this point.

They've lied repeatedly about the state of the project. Not just made mistakes, not just had to adapt to failures, but actually lied about how much they have working. Why the hell would anyone still believe anything they say? Yet we're continually expected to give them the benefit of doubt, and it's implied that anyone who points out their mendacity has some kind of nefarious FUDing agenda.

f042b95eff067bd3b67a629280f0c31a.gif


HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT! You'LL SEE!!!ElEveN!!!OnE Next year! Soon! Not months! YOU. DO. NOT.UNDERSTAND. DEVELOPMENT!
 
Oof.

A long time ago, in a kickstarter far far away, CIG mentioned that they were going to use a boardgame as a prototype for how the in-game economy was going to work. That was a neat idea, but not much more was mentioned of it and the years passed. Then all of a sudden, there were rumblings that an SC-connected boardgame — presumably the economy one they had been talking about earlier — was coming out, and what eventually showed up was Star Traders.

It was really a reprint of a much older game made by Origin alumnus David Ladyman from his time at SJG (before he went to write manuals for Chris' games at Origin), and since there weren't any real details about how the SC economy was supposed to work, it still seemed entirely possible that they had just figured they could build in on the basic ideas of ST. To aid him, he borrowed CIG concept artist Ryan Archer and got to work.

When the KS launched, with Chris and Sandi being a large part of the project PR, it quickly became apparent that much of the game “art” was just Archer finding images on google and applying photoshop filters to them without any attribution to the original artist. For concept work, that's one thing — for PR art and art for inclusion in a finalised commercial product, it's a no-no. So people started looking closer and found that, not just here, but in almost everything he had done for CIG as well, pretty much every last element could be easily identified and sourced from original work on DeviantArt and similar portfolio sites. Much abuse and swearing happened, and some half-hearted shows of contrition ensued, excusing the IP theft with not checking the work very closely… and then “fixing” it by just applying more PS filters to the same art so it was harder to spot.

This is what I don't get.
Do they not have any professionalism at all, by blatantly "archering" material from other places.
I think this is the thing that annoys me the most about the whole project.

We need to compile a list of archered materials including the sandworm!
:D
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom