I've no idea, I have no expertise in anything like that. I'm making an observation based on the nagging feeling of 'surely this is wrong' when you stare into the Star Citizen fundraising enterprise and it starts to stare back.
Star Citizen Thread v6
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
I've no idea, I have no expertise in anything like that. I'm making an observation based on the nagging feeling of 'surely this is wrong' when you stare into the Star Citizen fundraising enterprise and it starts to stare back.
Good question.
That would be the equivalent of a publisher looking over a kickstarter company's shoulder which also kind of destroy the entire POINT with crowdfunding.
- Adding a 3rd party as an overseer would require staff, wages, controls of schedules and timelines, and ultimately the checkbook.
That's called a publisher.
Kickstarters are risk investments, you give money and there are no guarantees it will succeed.
- It is no different than someone looking at collected data and whatever company fact one can find and then supporting a private venture to look for natural gas or oil.
Almighty Bob
Banned
Thanks for the compliments on my translation attempt (of the parts I translated
). I do not write much in German but do speak it a lot for business reasons, If people wish to learn a language I would recommend it I like the structure.Anyway the article. In its entirety it is balanced but lacks the detail of the PC gamer one. I'm actually surprised that Cobra posted it , given that it can be viewed as supportive of Star Citizen. I presume he went by the funny pictures rather than reading it although his original post suggests he can read it as he says -- for those of yuou who can not read German the pictures sum it up, or something similar.
If we give prized for the three people who posted this article. I give
Gold to Nochrach for a complete and accurate translation.
Silver to me, for my translation.
Bronze to Cobra, sorry Cobra just highlighting the funny pictures lost it for you.
After seeing the state of the game, or at least what they presented at Gamecom, there were too many things broken or required more fleshing out, that would be essential for SQ42. If they can't sort that stuff out yet, how can they make any kind of a game, single player or otherwise. Ships that fly like they are hanging from cranes, player characters falling through ships and ground vehicles, vehicle to vehicle interaction problems. Many, if not all, of these elements would be required parts of any SC game.
The throwaway explanation by Jared, that all of these perfectly working systems, fully fleshed out and complete, just happen to not work when brought together, is both frustrating and disappointing. And I suspect not a little disengenious. If by that he means "Well, it works in the editor!" then they have bigger problems and have all but admitted to what the sceptics have been saying for some time: they cannot actually make a game out of all these assets they have.
For that is what we were shown at Gamescom during the week. Just a handful of pretty assets thrown together. I've seen similar from those devs. that buy objects from the Unity store and call it a game.
The throwaway explanation by Jared, that all of these perfectly working systems, fully fleshed out and complete, just happen to not work when brought together, is both frustrating and disappointing. And I suspect not a little disengenious. If by that he means "Well, it works in the editor!" then they have bigger problems and have all but admitted to what the sceptics have been saying for some time: they cannot actually make a game out of all these assets they have.
For that is what we were shown at Gamescom during the week. Just a handful of pretty assets thrown together. I've seen similar from those devs. that buy objects from the Unity store and call it a game.
Almighty Bob
Banned
On the flip side, I take it that your posting of it had no details of translation in it because you would have to write something positive about star citizen. When you posted it you more or less said -- have a look at the funny pictures.
In fact that is a good idea I do hope that your book about SC development has pictures in it.
A lot of this is already regulated by the Uk gov:
https://www.gov.uk/marketing-advertising-law/regulations-that-affect-advertising
...and if you do this, then this can lead to:
The only thing I don't see CIG guilty of is "using aggressive sales techniques"...questionable, definitely...aggressive, not really.
Last edited:
The kickstarter is a separate issue from the fund raising they've done since that ended. They are beholden to KS T&Cs and could face legal action for failing to meet their obligations there. For example - https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-poli...inst-a-failed-kickstarter-with-112k-judgment/
But the money they've taken on their own site...that surely falls under regular consumer law (which they know themselves, hence why refunds are being given despite their protests that they don't actually have to oblige). No matter how they might phrase it, what they're doing is pre-selling a product. In the EU and many other regions consumers have a lot of protection and can claim refunds for undelivered items. Until they deliver Star Citizen and Squadron 42 anyone who has handed money to CIG can get a refund, and in the EU at least you can still claim a refund up to 14 days after delivery. Things would get messier if CIG just dumps out an unfinished product, calls it done and then refuses refunds.
There wasn't a single bit of evidence from what they showed at gamescom that they're in any position to finish SQ42 anytime soon. The sequence with the box and the jeep ramp takedown was scripted and rehearsed and didn't actually demonstrate a real gameplay loop (and even then it didn't work). It was essentially just people roleplaying a game.
But the money they've taken on their own site...that surely falls under regular consumer law (which they know themselves, hence why refunds are being given despite their protests that they don't actually have to oblige). No matter how they might phrase it, what they're doing is pre-selling a product. In the EU and many other regions consumers have a lot of protection and can claim refunds for undelivered items. Until they deliver Star Citizen and Squadron 42 anyone who has handed money to CIG can get a refund, and in the EU at least you can still claim a refund up to 14 days after delivery. Things would get messier if CIG just dumps out an unfinished product, calls it done and then refuses refunds.
There wasn't a single bit of evidence from what they showed at gamescom that they're in any position to finish SQ42 anytime soon. The sequence with the box and the jeep ramp takedown was scripted and rehearsed and didn't actually demonstrate a real gameplay loop (and even then it didn't work). It was essentially just people roleplaying a game.
Last edited:
Except i answered you in regards to crowdfunding.
If you now mean what CIG as a company is doing, if their business model would be fraudulent or mismanaged or other issues then most countries already have corporate laws about it.
If the private venture would then not look there for natural gas, but rather start a project to search for that gas in outer space 'because the scope expanded' the private venture will be sued.
Nope, at this point SQ42 feels more like a side project that is wholly dependant on the mechanics developed for the persistent universe, which also makes sense - creating two different ways to handle things just to get ONE part of a product out faster can bite them in the behind later since they have two expansions planned for SQ42.
Almighty Bob
Banned
For a bit of fun, I imagined that I had some kind of Hollywood life/Body swap with Chris Roberts to see what I would do with CIG.
I would have to take into account;-
The investors/backers, my employees, their families and liveliehoods, my reputaion, any legal procedings, my familys finacial security.
1st, I would give a detailed breakdown of all the financies and state of development,
2nd I would release 3.0 in its current form, it looked okay at gamescom in 15 min sections,
3rd I would have to keep the project going as long as possible, if possible for years, this would have two impacts, my loyal emplyeees would keep their jobs and we would hopefully produce the game of our dreams.
4th I would keep the SQ42 game play and plot completly under wraps so as not to spoil it for the players.
If you reply with your own list, please keep your ideas to about 100 words as I do not think many people read those huge walls of texts. Oh and keep it clean no imagining Sandi:x
I would have to take into account;-
The investors/backers, my employees, their families and liveliehoods, my reputaion, any legal procedings, my familys finacial security.
1st, I would give a detailed breakdown of all the financies and state of development,
2nd I would release 3.0 in its current form, it looked okay at gamescom in 15 min sections,
3rd I would have to keep the project going as long as possible, if possible for years, this would have two impacts, my loyal emplyeees would keep their jobs and we would hopefully produce the game of our dreams.
4th I would keep the SQ42 game play and plot completly under wraps so as not to spoil it for the players.
If you reply with your own list, please keep your ideas to about 100 words as I do not think many people read those huge walls of texts. Oh and keep it clean no imagining Sandi:x
Unless they called the investors and set up a public vote to expand the project...Which CIG did.
Now, how skewed that vote was can be debated but if investors threw money at the project and then choose not to keep themselves updated even when given information is that the company's fault?
And from what we have seen no lawsuit has been filed but several investors of the project HAVE gotten a refund. So what is left should be the investors interested in the project.
Also, on the subject of being sued.
https://www.seedinvest.com/academy/risks-of-investing-in-startups
Haha, no. That absolutely does not fly, which is why CIG is forced to give refunds. The 'public vote' was never about "Hey guys, is it okay if we are still at Alpha 0.0.2.6 in 2017??", and individual agreements cannot be nullified by pointing at an online poll where others voted. Its completely silly you even suggest it. Also, you didnt 'invest' in anything, you pre-ordered a game and assets in the game, which CIG has to deliver or offer refunds. That is at least legally the case over here. Over here you cant charge VAT over sold products and then claim you never sold a product.
Ofcourse, whether you'll get the money if you wait till the collapse is a different thing, as the backers tend to be pretty much last in line in these situations. But thats more a practical issue than anything else, and should serve as a strong warning to cancel the pre-order when thinks look as sketchy as this. You can always buy the game back if it ever releases.
Ha! You think CR will accept that? He will want it modelled right down to the alien coffee cup holder equivalent that will only ever be seen as a few pixels if you go cockpit to cockpit with ne.
They probably are not, because they still need a lot of code from the SC side. All those base gameplay mechanics and tech that are not specific to SC (eg: networking, physics, item 2.0, subsum... AI, etc) are needed for SQ42. Plus any ships that they want to show in SQ42 that are not ready yet also need to be done.
The main plus is that if ncessary, they can cut corners in SQ42 by not using stuff they don't have and replacing with other more basic things. They don't really need subsumption, they could just go with regular scripted stuff for example. Depends whether CR will allow that.
Hmmm... If I were Roberts, I'd:
1. Release 3.0 and declare it to be the MVP; by so doing putting a stop to this charade;
2. Google "list of countries that don't have an extradition treaty in place with either the United States or the United Kingdom" and go to one of them for a "holiday"; and
3. Tell the SC-friendly media that the collapse was due to the evil game publishers plotting behind the scenes to bring CIG down.
You know I hadn't considered CIG having to fulfill Kickstarter obligations. Certainly something to look at.
It absolutely is a pre-ordered game as far as I can tell, there's no getting around that.
A simple pre-order becomes this whole whirling, spinning story of investment into what is described as a campaign against people who want to see it fail.
At the same time, everyone actually is watching it fail.
It's interesting to watch the offensives mounted against the commentary on the disasterous demo without referencing the demo, at the same time the marketing switches gear to future, future, future.
As for SQ42, Gamescon made me happier to accept stuff I have been told at face value - that it does not exist.
For all the extra time it takes, the attention to what many would call useless details DO make the ships and their interior look awesome.
And having a possible bug hunt for a knife wielding Vanduul on board a sabotaged 1 kilometer bengal can be some serious Alien:Isolation type of fun.
So going for minimum viable product might be the wrong move as well.
- Status