The Star Citizen Thread v5

[thorn-]

"Wow factor" isn't the same as "revolutionary", "groundbreaking", "never done before", and those are real descriptions of SC I have seen.

After working in media for 25 years, I don't get overly concerned nor enamored with marketing terms. CR may spend 10 mins saying "NEVER DONE BEFORE!!" and that's fine. I don't put that much faith it it, but that's ok. It's spin, just like when some reviewer says "THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER!" If consumers/gamers really believe all the weird hype of marketing, then honestly - that's on them. But if you're yelling "CR is a liar! He's a charlatan! I believed his words!" .... what does that say about you?

Yeah, whatever. I'll play your game or watch your movie, and then decide how I feel about it. If I loved it - great. If not, there's other choices.

Not to mention that SC isn't polished yet, perhaps excluding their renderer/shaders/PBR/whatever you want to call it.

The shading and graphics are pretty sweet. Hopefully the rest of the game will follow that example.

 

[Red Anders]

Fair enough... I can't fault you for having that view of the matter. I simply don't share it. [cool]

I've edited my post to explain the reason I hold the opinion that I do. I work for an employer, you're either freelance or self employed as far as I know, so I'll certainly admit that you have more experience in operating a business than I have. If you have no additional costs no matter which option you go for, why would the 'cut 'em loose' option seem to be the more sensible one to you? I just can't see anything that's potentially gained by it, but I can certainly see something that could potentially be lost.

I'm not talking about your 'personal' (i.e. as an individual) view here, I get that you think refund culture is somewhat out of control, but in the example we're talking about the refund is being given regardless of what else is done and it's a business decision not a personal one, or at least it shouldn't be a personal one assuming that business decisions are taken for primarily commercial reasons.

Not trolling by the way, genuine question.

 

[LeSabre]

"Wow factor" isn't the same as "revolutionary", "groundbreaking", "never done before", and those are real descriptions of SC I have seen. Not to mention that SC isn't polished yet, perhaps excluding their renderer/shaders/PBR/whatever you want to call it.

The stuff CIG produce on the rendering side isn't really very hightech, it looks pretty sure, but most of the recent versions including the one they are using are capable of much higher quality and efficiency than what a game developer uses. If they were to make SC using the known absolute rendering limits of CE then it would look very different.

The trouble is, even now they have no idea how well their current rendering tech will work once they start adding gameplay and actual things to make it more like a game rather than a tech demo, all the reworks of ships and other assets just says to me that due to the backend stuff piling up and bogging it all down, they are having to constantly fettle with the polygon heavy stuff in order to get it to run above slideshow levels of frames. The number of things currently available to do/see/etc in game is a tiny fraction of what's been proposed and already they've been busy chopping polys and shaving stuff down, the rendering engine is going to just fall over and die trying to render anything like a ship once the backend is filled with all the silly stuff they've said "derp, yes we will do that, derp" to.

 

[VidarSnipes]

After working in media for 25 years, I don't get overly concerned nor enamored with marketing terms. CR may spend 10 mins saying "NEVER DONE BEFORE!!" and that's fine. I don't put that much faith it it, but that's ok. It's spin, just like when some reviewer says "THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER!" If consumers/gamers really believe all the weird hype of marketing, then honestly - that's on them. But if you're yelling "CR is a liar! He's a charlatan! I believed his words!" .... what does that say about you?

If you refer to me specifically, then I neither yell anything (it's just a dinky little thread on a single developer's forum), nor I believed words of anyone. CIG's marketing is so obnoxious I decided to whine about it and its' unreal promises used to sell macrotransactions on a forum I registered earlier, and as marketing is an integral part of the game's development, I reserve the right to criticise it.

The shading and graphics are pretty sweet. Hopefully the rest of the game will follow that example.

I hope they will rethink their design, though, I can't stand Crusader's overbloomed sepia and the gunmetal grey interiors of pretty much everything. That rich, wood-and-white-metal hangar is very nice, though, and reflections on metal look great.

 

[thorn-]

I've edited my post to explain the reason I hold the opinion that I do.

(Have read your edit, and understand more of your opinion now.)

I work for an employer, you're either freelance or self employed as far as I know, so I'll certainly admit that you have more experience in operating a business than I have.

Currently freelance, yes. Have also worked for big media companies.

If you have no additional costs no matter which option you go for, why would the 'cut 'em loose' option seem to be the more sensible one to you?

I think it depends on how your systems are set for customer relations. I only have - say, 10-20 - clients to manage at a time. CIG has 500-900K clients. So for them, it may be too much overhead to deal with "Bob Jones wants a refund, but to keep his ships. Ken Smith wants to sell his ships, but keep his UEC. And Scott Barber wants a refund for everything he bought since his initial pledge." At the very least, you'd need more people in accounting keeping track of all these variations. From what I've read from CIG (in their own words/paraphrased) - that's not a level of participation they're interested in. You can keep your account, or refund it... but we're not really interested in acting like the staff @ ScottTrade.

I just can't see anything that's potentially gained by it, but I can certainly see something that could potentially be lost.

Certainly you risk potential goodwill of a future, returning customer. No argument there. At all. It is always better to part with a polite smile, if possible.

I'm not talking about your 'personal' (i.e. as an individual) view here, I get that you think refund culture is somewhat out of control, but in the example we're talking about the refund is being given regardless of what else is done and it's a business decision not a personal one, or at least it shouldn't be a personal one assuming that business decisions are taken for primarily commercial reasons.

I guess my answer will be my personal view. It depends on both your customer-related staff (see above), but also your mindset. I've had clients that left, that I will still offer assistance to when they call. Because they were cool people, and even though the biz relationship ended, I still consider them a valuable biz relationship. There are other (far fewer, thankfully) clients that left... and I'll do little more than answer the email they send, because based on various factors I don't think they're worth my time - even answering their email seems to be time better spent on taking a smoke break.

So it's sort of a range. Obviously with a few hundred-thousand clients, you kind of have to have a less.... per-case policy.

Not trolling by the way, genuine question.

I appreciate that man, and hope you see my response with the same genuineness. We've been in agreement in some other matters in the past, so I hope you'll see I'm not just trying to stir up trouble for the sake of boredom nor have some weird fanboy agenda.

 

[thorn-]

I hope they will rethink their design, though, I can't stand Crusader's overbloomed sepia and the gunmetal grey interiors of pretty much everything. That rich, wood-and-white-metal hangar is very nice, though, and reflections on metal look great.

I think it's probably different artists... or, the same artists being given the task of producing different palettes of color.

One of my favorite film looks is Blade Runner; certain parts of the Area 18 map remind me of it. Other areas (such as the hanger you mentioned) have sort of a ... Minority Report clean look. Which CAN work, if you're going for a particular feeling. But visually - yeah, I prefer dirty, used, neon, trashy.

 

[LeSabre]

I hope they will rethink their design, though, I can't stand Crusader's overbloomed sepia and the gunmetal grey interiors of pretty much everything. That rich, wood-and-white-metal hangar is very nice, though, and reflections on metal look great.

The gunmetal grey stuff is the dullest and most overused thing in SciFi, it's just so boring and unimaginative. Which kinda makes me laugh at it's presence in SC, they had a complete free reign on how it would all look, a blank canvas with a pallette of their chosing, unlimited boundries to their imagination, and the very first station/area they design is "Nissan antiquated breadbin-grey with old man moustache-grey highlights". They could've given it a unique style of it's own, but nope, far better to make it look like a stereotypical British accountants dusty, audit form in triplicate filled attic.

Shame really, I still wonder if the artists are even happy or just indifferent with the overall look of Crusader. I won't even go into how there's no unifying visual style for each ship manufacturer bar what the cockpit and engines look like on each of their ships.

 

[SlackR]

Ha! And force closing your account too so you can't avoid it, ouch.

Don't ever buy "second hand" ships, CIG have you completely over a barrel if you do.

Yeah I'm definitely losing a good few ships because I bought them 3rd party. I don't really care at this point because I haven't played the game for a couple of years now and most of those ships don't exist yet anyway. Back in the day grey market trading was exciting and the ships felt limited and special. But after how many years of seeing new ships being released before old ones were completed it got tired.
I'm lucky that money isn't really the issue for me here, I just felt that I was lied to about the VR priorities of SC. I still want the game to work, just without me

 

[thorn-]

Yeah I'm definitely losing a good few ships because I bought them 3rd party.

Assuming you've asked/received a refund, why didn't you sell your assets before the refund/closing your account?

 

[SlackR]

Assuming you've asked/received a refund, why didn't you sell your assets before the refund/closing your account?

I haven't been involved in SC or grey market for years. Anything I get back at this point is a bonus , but I have no interest in losing time over the process.

 

[[VR] DDM_Reaper20]

Happy Late Saint Valentine's day citizens!

http://i.imgur.com/EgcWIU9.png

Lovely video from Mr. and Miss. SausageFingers enjoying the Verse in another adorable adventure in the Verse!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B78evOklxH0

Have fun Citizens!

"Star Citizen--'cause NUFFIN' says stuff YOU, HONEY" like buying a JPEG for yourself on Valentines..."

 

[Viajero]

The 2.6.1 patch offers new camera controls; SC has offered different uniforms/clothing for quite awhile. I don't believe that if other games add this sort of thing that it's necessarily reactionary.

It really actually wasn't. And we are in comparison off topic again (although imo as long the comparisons dont highjack the main thread topic they should be ok, if relevant for the topic).

As you may or may not know "other games" have members of the community helping with translation aspects of the game to other languages than English. Now that in that other game a vanity camera element has been announced and it is in the public domain I can confirm that some of those community translators received the new camera related texts in November (which also suggests the decision to develop and code all that must have been taken much much earlier than that even). And on the other hand the first public news about Star Citizen "Director Mode" are from December afaik. Make the maths.

But that is by the by. It is plain and clear for all to see CIG has been all along much more opportunistic and reactionary in most of its planned (most not even yet released) content updates and announcements than your average game. Procedural stuff, VR late 2015 announcements to the press, bases, and a long etc. The hype inducing commercial motivator for all this reactionary behaviour is more than obvious.

Ultimately, the issue of "copying" (as long as not unlawful) or being "reactive" is really not a major issue per se tbh. All games copy or react to some degree, including Elite, and if those copied/reacted features end up being great or even better than the inspiration, we, as consumers end up better off.

The issue at hand here with SC is that some of us are of the opinion that given the significant amount of these incidents with the game development, CIG is:

A) Altering the course of the development too often, which usually leads to mismanagement and waste of resources, unless the company has very disciplined and robust management of change process (usually very rare in young companies or companies that grow too fast).
B) Not delivering on those promises, and using those reactive updates and announcements mainly from an opportunistic commercial motivation standpoint ignoring the commitment to resources and technical debt it leads to.

 

[dayrth]

Please Mr Orlando, use spoiler tags. My mobile is having a breakdown.

 

[GaryII]

Here, let me try:

I think Star Citizen is different to X Rebirth in the following respects:
- They are made by different companies
- They have different graphics engines
- Star Citizen features multiplayer

Those two are totally irrelevant, since of course they are true..so only MP are left here...

But in general SC comparison to X-Rebirth are very valid looking at current SC state...

Anyway I am waiting for actual gameplay demos for v3.0 like trading, mining, piracy etc

I am not interested at this point watch another fancy graphics and effects videos, those can do a lot of companies, but good gameplay in 2017 is a BIG issue for lot of devs...

 

[frostypaw]

You don't retain your full CC account, with access to all the cool toys, do you? Don't think so.

You also retain the documents you created, but Adobe doesn't give you a freebie option to continue editing your Premiere comps.

We're sort of splitting hairs on a point here. If you believe cancelling your CIG account is going to "cost" you the value of your grey market ships, the solution is simple: sell them before you cancel. I believe GM ships aren't quite TOS to begin with, so the problem (as already stated) is on that the player created on their own.

Only that's still a terrible example.

If I cancel Premiere but keep Photoshop they allow me to do that whereas those who've tried to cancel their packages down to just a starter ship and basic Sq42/SC package have had the entirety refunded and their account cancelled.

So what point was this intended to make?

--- combined post ---

Heh

But I don't get it, he seems to think it's against the rules to make comparisons?

There's an extensive thread on /r/ds/ where he claims the mods only allow comparisons that are deleterious to SC. It's all part of the 'there's a big conspiracy against SC so we all have to fight together against it to save mankind' non-culty vibe.

 

[Tippis]

Only that's still a terrible example.

If I cancel Premiere but keep Photoshop they allow me to do that whereas those who've tried to cancel their packages down to just a starter ship and basic Sq42/SC package have had the entirety refunded and their account cancelled.

So what point was this intended to make?

His point seemed to be that CIG isn't alone in the self-defeating practice of closing your account and removing everything on it if you ask for a refund because Adobe does the same. The obvious problem with this point is that it's wrong since Adobe does not to actually do that. Instead, they do the sensible thing of just removing access to the specific services you're no longer paying for, leaving everything else — most notably your account, so you can start paying for those services again in the future — completely intact.

There's an extensive thread on /r/ds/ where he claims the mods only allow comparisons that are deleterious to SC. It's all part of the 'there's a big conspiracy against SC so we all have to fight together against it to save mankind' non-culty vibe.

It's also not all that difficult to see the difference:
“SC is facing problem Ω, which games X, Y and Z have solved using methods a, b, c” ← comparing SC and other games (ok).
“Game X sucks because of method a; yay for SC” ← discussing game X, with a non-sequitur at the end (not ok).
“Game Y owns because of method b; boo for SC” ← discussing game Y, with a non-sequitur at the end (also not ok).
“SC sucks because of method γ, they should have used a, b, or c to solve Ω instead” ← discussing SC, but somewhat lacking in rationale (ok…ish).
“SC owns because of method γ, which is much better than a, b, or c for solving Ω” ← discussing SC, but the relevance of a, b, and c are unclear (ok…ish).


In other news, and more related to that bugsmashers episode, someone over at SA made a good point…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUaLb0-HGGg#t=256s

Am I missing something obvious or is his explanation completely wrong? I thought the comparison in if (integer != 0) is redundant (since every integer that isn't 0 evaluates to true). There is no problem being verbose for clarity (since the compiler should optimise it away), but his reasoning sounds like his doesn't understand how an int is implicitly converted into a bool.

It's comforting to know that CIG's bugfixers don't understand the fundamental types and conversions of the language they're using.

 

[Sir.Tj]

Ok, added spoiler tags the certain posts.

Please use the spoiler tags in future for large images and or videos which contain... spoilers.

And remember to discuss the post not the poster.

 

[hairychris]

After working in media for 25 years, I don't get overly concerned nor enamored with marketing terms. CR may spend 10 mins saying "NEVER DONE BEFORE!!" and that's fine. I don't put that much faith it it, but that's ok. It's spin, just like when some reviewer says "THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER!" If consumers/gamers really believe all the weird hype of marketing, then honestly - that's on them. But if you're yelling "CR is a liar! He's a charlatan! I believed his words!" .... what does that say about you?

Yeah, whatever. I'll play your game or watch your movie, and then decide how I feel about it. If I loved it - great. If not, there's other choices.

I've spent >20 years working for major advertising & PR agencies which is why I believe very little that comes out of CIG's collective mouths. FWIW this isn't anything particular about CIG but more of a general statement where the more hyperbole is present the less believable any statements are.

My particular difficulties with CIG/RSI/Roberts is that they were making extensive promises for a product that didn't exist, are still making extensive promises for a product that doesn't yet exist, have claimed to be transparent but really aren't, seem to have internal management problems, and seem to be incapable of managing customer expectations (benefit of doubt as if they are deliberately misleading customers then that's potentially fraudulent)... plus my inbuilt dislike of their high-value ship sales business model.

If consumers/gamers really believe all the weird hype of marketing, then honestly - that's on them. But if you're yelling "CR is a liar! He's a charlatan! I believed his words!" .... what does that say about you?

I find this statement very problematic for a wide variety of reasons, mainly stemming from the general rule that "caveat emptor" is a fair place to start but if the seller is dishonest then the buyer is definitely in trouble - look at any number of scams where otherwise intelligent folks pay out huge amounts of money for specious promises.

Right now we are at the stage where a final product as promised to backers does not exist, and looks to be years out if actually achievable in the first place, and CIG are still chasing cash. If there's a failure then it's still a failure, whatever the motivation. Roberts has failed when chasing thisdream with his own money, now he's using customer cash. Still, I hope that something comes out that the whales find worth it.

EDIT: The old adage "the easiest person to fool is yourself" is relevant on multiple levels.

I'm also sure that there's a book in this saga somewhere, and if there is I hope that a chunk of it is given over to the psychology of the player base!

 

[ianw]

I've spent >20 years working for major advertising & PR agencies which is why I believe very little that comes out of CIG's collective mouths. FWIW this isn't anything particular about CIG but more of a general statement where the more hyperbole is present the less believable any statements are.

My particular difficulties with CIG/RSI/Roberts is that they were making extensive promises for a product that didn't exist, are still making extensive promises for a product that doesn't yet exist, have claimed to be transparent but really aren't, seem to have internal management problems, and seem to be incapable of managing customer expectations (benefit of doubt as if they are deliberately misleading customers then that's potentially fraudulent)... plus my inbuilt dislike of their high-value ship sales business model.



I find this statement very problematic for a wide variety of reasons, mainly stemming from the general rule that "caveat emptor" is a fair place to start but if the seller is dishonest then the buyer is definitely in trouble - look at any number of scams where otherwise intelligent folks pay out huge amounts of money for specious promises.

Right now we are at the stage where a final product as promised to backers does not exist, and looks to be years out if actually achievable in the first place, and CIG are still chasing cash. If there's a failure then it's still a failure, whatever the motivation. Roberts has failed when chasing thisdream with his own money, now he's using customer cash. Still, I hope that something comes out that the whales find worth it.

EDIT: The old adage "the easiest person to fool is yourself" is relevant on multiple levels.

I'm also sure that there's a book in this saga somewhere, and if there is I hope that a chunk of it is given over to the psychology of the player base!

I'm pretty sure El Derek has mentioned he has a book in the works!

Regarding the caveat emptor thing clearly it's true that buyers really should beware - but that doesn't absolve someone if they're selling stuff based on lies - or alternative facts - as they seem to be called these days (why does there have to be an new idiotic phrase for something so simple - gah!).

The problem seems to be where - gaming in this case - meets the real business world. Some "creatives" seem to think they exist outside of the norms and rules of business in the areas they operate because "not publishers" "dreams" "donations" etc.

Which is why we get these ludricrous unenforcable T&Cs they make up and think will stick.

 

[lysan]

I've spent >20 years working for major advertising & PR agencies which is why I believe very little that comes out of CIG's collective mouths. FWIW this isn't anything particular about CIG but more of a general statement where the more hyperbole is present the less believable any statements are.

My particular difficulties with CIG/RSI/Roberts is that they were making extensive promises for a product that didn't exist, are still making extensive promises for a product that doesn't yet exist, have claimed to be transparent but really aren't, seem to have internal management problems, and seem to be incapable of managing customer expectations (benefit of doubt as if they are deliberately misleading customers then that's potentially fraudulent)... plus my inbuilt dislike of their high-value ship sales business model.



I find this statement very problematic for a wide variety of reasons, mainly stemming from the general rule that "caveat emptor" is a fair place to start but if the seller is dishonest then the buyer is definitely in trouble - look at any number of scams where otherwise intelligent folks pay out huge amounts of money for specious promises.

Right now we are at the stage where a final product as promised to backers does not exist, and looks to be years out if actually achievable in the first place, and CIG are still chasing cash. If there's a failure then it's still a failure, whatever the motivation. Roberts has failed when chasing thisdream with his own money, now he's using customer cash. Still, I hope that something comes out that the whales find worth it.

EDIT: The old adage "the easiest person to fool is yourself" is relevant on multiple levels.

I'm also sure that there's a book in this saga somewhere, and if there is I hope that a chunk of it is given over to the psychology of the player base!

To be honest I belive CR had honest intentions when he started this fallen project.

1. He is not a project manager and didn't hire or listen to the one he had if he ever had one.
2. Got hooked on catch 22, and was not able to get free of the evil circle surrounding the project.
3. Too much money too fast! they got greedy and now they are in the spider web trying to get free.

Now to me it's very close to a scam, taking money at this point is not honest and will end up in disaster for sure.

Derek Smart was right, however he is just the loudest one, many people have raised their voices during the years but was shut down by the crazy CIG minions