The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Evil_Merlin]

So no, you don't think they have any obligation to deliver this time either. Fair enough.

They have a goal. That goal may or not be reached. Its laid out quite clearly in the Caveats.

- - - Updated - - -

I think he said he got shot for making promises, not that this one was not a promise.

For sakes, the CEO stands up and shows a flashy demo, knowing it is 100% not in-game and all fake and that there is not even a schedule to bring the features to the game and says "we will get it out by the end of the year", "that's our goal". It is beyond the pale that he can do that and not have the entire community railing against him.

It is a confidence game. CR gets backer confidence by making a bunch of statements he knows are not correct to get backer confidence to give him money.

Uh, everything showed in the demo was using the in game engine.

Just how was it "fake"? Did it use in game graphics/engine? yes. Did it use in game assets? Yes. Did it use in game scripting? Yes. So just how was it "fake"?

 

[ianw]

They are not useless. Anyone can see what they are working on and what they are trying to get into the next builds.


https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

Is it perfect? Nope.

Well they're clearly not very good at estimating dates for when they can do stuff.

Maybe they should just put their hands up and say "we haven't got a clue - it'll be ready when it's ready - or not"

Why don't they just say that and get on with it?

 

[Evil_Merlin]

Well they're clearly not very good at estimating dates for when they can do stuff.

Maybe they should just put their hands up and say "we haven't got a clue - it'll be ready when it's ready - or not"

Why don't they just say that and get on with it?

The announced schedules have been decent. Not 100% accurate all the time, but still decent. It gives folks an idea of what/when and where. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Tippis]

What part of "SO NOT MAKING PROMISES" didn't you get?

What part of “it's the goal” did you not get?
What part of “we’re gonna get it out the end of the year” did you not get?

Most importantly: what part of him saying this four months before they could even start planning on how to make the version in question — something that would be readily apparent the time he said it — do you still not get even though it has been pointed out on numerous occasions by now?

He made those statements at a time when they hadn't even begun planning, much less actually building, the thing that according to the stated goal would be out three months later. Do you truly not understand why this is a problem?

Uh, everything showed in the demo was using the in game engine.

We don't know this.

We don't know if it was using the actual game or just same engine or even just something using a similar rendering pipeline. We don't know that it used any kind of game scripting, or indeed any scripting at all. We only know that some of the assets were from the game. That's it — the only thing demonstrably relating it to the game they ostensibly demoed was the thing that tells us nothing either way about any kind of fakery.

 

[CmdrKull]

So I'm inferring from your words here that you believe a developer/project manager (such as Chris Roberts is) that repeatedly lies, or attempts to defraud (under the criteria used in this forum's various posts) people by either denying refunds, or overstating the progress made on a game, is "completely incompetent and should do something else."

That would be an accurate inference?

Do you think this a fair standard in the industry, or is Chris Roberts being held to a higher one?

Sneaky, sneaky thorn! Yes I'd say it's fair to hold others to the same criteria that we hold Roberts to. However, "look, others do it too!" Is not the best defense. Roberts, who should have known better, looked at a years worth of unstarted unplanned work and then went on stage and told everyone in the world "it'll be done in three months or less" to his company's financial gain. That's a hard act top.

Evil_Merlin, thanks for responding. I was beginning to think I was on your ignore filter. I personally don't believe that he was unable to tell the difference between three months worth of work and one year worth of work. Are we even going to get everything that was promised within a one-year timeframe? We'll get enough… Honestly the stuff that they're talking about and 3.0 does look… Dare I say it? "Fun". But it's not all that was promised and it is so very, very late.

 

[ianw]

The announced schedules have been decent. Not 100% accurate all the time, but still decent. It gives folks an idea of what/when and where. I see nothing wrong with that.

6 months out for "3.0" with a load of stuff missing doesn't strike me as anywhere near decent.

And we're still in April - what do you reckon the likelihood of getting even the cut down version of 3.0 in a functioning state on their estimated date is?

 

[LeSabre]

They are not useless. Anyone can see what they are working on and what they are trying to get into the next builds.


https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

Is it perfect? Nope.

They have no honour dude and they don't seem to care about timeframes. Watch as, just like all the others, that schedule is refactored over and over again and the months pass by.

All you see is what they "tell you" they are working on, all we tend to see are photo's of mo-cap canteens and the occasional 'female' avatar being tinkered with but never deployed. Any 'newly minted' marketing drone can knock up a convincing report that shows things in a favorable light, doesn't mean a thing when every other report since 2013 has been puffed up promo pieces with very little to do with what ends up on your computer.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Was I disappointed they couldn't hit December? Sure. Am I going to complain and moan?

You can't release something you haven't yet written the schedule for. You were lied to. Why wouldn't you complain?

 

[lysan]

So I'm inferring from your words here that you believe a developer/project manager (such as Chris Roberts is) that repeatedly lies, or attempts to defraud (under the criteria used in this forum's various posts) people by either denying refunds, or overstating the progress made on a game, is "completely incompetent and should do something else."

That would be an accurate inference?

Do you think this a fair standard in the industry, or is Chris Roberts being held to a higher one?

If we would see the same from any other developer I would say the same, hence my raising concern of "other" game developers in these very forums.

 

[thorn-]

Sneaky, sneaky thorn! Yes I'd say it's fair to hold others to the same criteria that we hold Roberts to. However, "look, others do it too!" Is not the best defense.

Oh, I'm certainly not trying to imply that a poor record of performance is NOT poor, simply because "others also fail to perform."

 

[Stigbob]

Oh, I'm certainly not trying to imply that a poor record of performance is NOT poor, simply because "others also fail to perform."

No-one else has a record breaking level of pre-order debt.

 

[Gnorok]

Well they're clearly not very good at estimating dates for when they can do stuff.

Maybe they should just put their hands up and say "we haven't got a clue - it'll be ready when it's ready - or not"

Why don't they just say that and get on with it?

That´s not a good idea. You would be responsible for a lot of unemployed producers [yesnod]

But more serious: It´s a hell of a job to get such a company running and organized. Planning and deadlines have been chaotic and abysmal. But we have seen the same with well established companies. No one is accusing these for fraud or scamming (have you ever seen a publisher who said his development studio has scammed him?). And the argument "But they use backer money" doesn´t change this fact; to be honest, I´m fed up with it. Every backer knows the risk of a total loss before backing (or he is not very clever, to put it politely).

I´m absolut not happy with the pace of the development and I´m convinced a lot of money was burned due to mismanagement. But I´m far from calling CR a liar and SC a scam. That would be grossly impertinent against all of CIGs employees. There is still hope that they get their *** together and produce a great game.

 

[dsmart]

I still can't believe the backers let them get away with this 3.0 lie.

They didn't "let them get away with it". They had no choice because for the longest time, they've allowed CIG/RSI to do as they please - without consequences. So they set the precedent. This is why, barely a few whales are giving them money. The loud mouths currently attacking everybody, are either i) hired reputation management drones or ii) those who are deeply committed to the end because the alternative is us loling out butts off.

- - - Updated - - -

Is every game developer - including yourself - also either lying or attempting to defraud, when their game/update is delayed by more than 2 months?

Or is only Chris Roberts a defrauding liar?

Wrong context.

1) most of us don't get paid upfront for a game; promise to deliver by a date certain - then don't

2) most of us don't then use lies to show some semblance of progress because when someone has paid you for something, they expect you to deliver

And that's why the authorities exist; and why State attorneys keep going after projects which pull this stunt.

Your turn.

 

[Tippis]

(have you ever seen a publisher who said his development studio has scammed him?)

Well, there is that Aliens: Colonial Marines episode… and possibly Freelancer.
Oh, and while it's not the same industry, Ascendant Pictures went through something rather similar too.

Every backer knows the risk of a total loss before backing (or he is not very clever, to put it politely).

That makes sense during the actual kickstarter phase, when funding goals are commonly set lower than they should be and the developer is hoping that cheap-to-produce/costly-to-unlock stretch goals will create a comfortable (but far from certain) buffer.

But what about the phase when those goals are reached, smashed, and then into the stratosphere? What about the phase when the game everyone backed is “fully funded” twice over, or when it's “fully funded” even with a radical re-design, or when that re-design is then “fully funded” twice over to the point where the funding goes way beyond what would deem completely safe for most well-run development projects? Should the backers still assume that it's a risky proposition that might end up as a total loss given all of that?

But I'm far from calling CR a liar and SC a scam. That would be grossly impertinent against all of CIGs employees.

So what?

 

[Stigbob]

They didn't "let them get away with it". They had no choice because for the longest time, they've allowed CIG/RSI to do as they please - without consequences. So they set the precedent. This is why, barely a few whales are giving them money. The loud mouths currently attacking everybody, are either i) hired reputation management drones or ii) those who are deeply committed to the end because the alternative is us loling out butts off.

There's a third explanation, you can't get a refund for jpegs traded on the grey market. They may be trapped into vociferously supporting the game for financial reasons even whilst thinking it's knackered.

 

[McGlashan]

They have no honour dude and they don't seem to care about timeframes. Watch as, just like all the others, that schedule is refactored over and over again and the months pass by.

He doesn't care. They didn't "promise" it, it's an estimate, which will turn out to be inaccurate. Never mind that they still plan sales around these announcements, and make millions of dollars off the back of strongly suggesting (not promising) that these things are going to happen, even when it's clear they know they won't. The only obligation is to produce the final game at some unspecified time in the future, so as long as they maintain the illusion of working on it, it doesn't matter if they achieve absolutely nothing.

 

[dsmart]

Kindly show me where it was said 3.0 WILL release before the end of 2016, Because I can clearly show you where C.R. says they will TRY to do so but no promises...

You know what? I am going to keep copy and pasting my response EVERY time you regurgitate this nonsense. You keep ignoring it, yet because pages have scrolled by, during which you ignored it, you keep repeating it.

“..so, it’s our big end of the year release. er so er yeah, so we’re gonna get it out the end of the year; hopefully not on December 19th but, er, like last year….but it is a big one, so, not making er, I got shot for making promises, but er, that’s our goal.”

- Chris Roberts, GamesCom, Aug 19, 2016 @ 23:36


So between Aug, 2016 and the 3.0 schedule (amid much fanfare), the 3.0 is now stated to be coming June 29th, 2017. That's 10 months since Gamescom; and 6 months since Dec 2016.


Yet, shortly after raising over $22 million* between Aug-Dec based on those LIES; right after, in Jan, they started talking about "doing a 3.0 schedule". And then in April 2017, they released it. With a video explaining - gasp - how difficult it is to make a schedule.


*

08/16, $4,494,327
09/16, $2,315,704
10/16, $5,215,403
11/16, $7,776,767
12/16, $3,021,676

- - - Updated - - -

I hadn't read it properly before;

"so we’re gonna get it out the end of the year; hopefully not on December 19th but, er, like last year….but it is a big one, so, not making er, I got shot for making promises, but er, that’s our goal.”

we’re gonna get it out the end of the year

that’s our goal

Looking again I'd say he definitely meant sometime in 2017 to me - I guess sometimes we just don't understand words.

LOL!!! Wait! WOT?!? you did mean 2016, right?

 

[Gnorok]

...
But what about the phase when those goals are reached, smashed, and then into the stratosphere? What about the phase when the game everyone backed is “fully funded” twice over, or when it's “fully funded” even with a radical re-design, or when that re-design is then “fully funded” twice over to the point where the funding goes way beyond what would deem completely safe for most well-run development projects? Should the backers still assume that it's a risky proposition that might end up as a total loss given all of that?

As it was quite often mentioned in this thread, CIG has failed to deliver the most basic game mechanics until now. So the answer to your question is: Yes

 

[Tippis]

…also, if we're going to be pernickety about the parsing of Chris' statement and the whole “no promise bit” inside it, let's be so properly.

The not-a-promise-goal is really about not letting it slip until December 19th like they had done the year before. The rest of it is highly declarative: it is the end-of-year release; they are going to get it out by the end of the year.

As it was quite often mentioned in this thread, CIG has failed to deliver the most basic game mechanics until now. So the answer to your question is: Yes

Well, ok, yes. “Should” as in “is it the sensible thing to do, all things considered” would give that answer. I was thinking more of the “is it really right that they do this” sense (and “right” in more of a morality sense than a logical one).

 

[milligna]

Kindly show me where it was said 3.0 WILL release before the end of 2016, Because I can clearly show you where C.R. says they will TRY to do so but no promises...

How does that make it better? He's still an incompetent manager without a firm grasp on his own damn "vision" either way.

Even if he DID say "I promise we will," are you going to sit here and tell us with a straight face that you wouldn't be defending him to the hilt and gushing about how much FUN your broken tech demo is? It'd be all "it doesn't matter, you don't understand game development, it's ready when it's ready, it's still much better than Elite so nyah nyah" - surely all the joy and videos of Ben Lesnick he's brought you over the years would excuse another lie, right?

I'm amazed this incompetent mushmouth can spend years lying with impunity and still muster up such loyalty.

(suddenly realizes which country he's living in)

Oh wait.