Which makes it doubly confusing why so many people speak out on behalf of CIG providing information that they cannot possibly have.
Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
- Status
Which makes it doubly confusing why so many people speak out on behalf of CIG providing information that they cannot possibly have.
Now you're thinking with portals!It's more that to create a continuous function, we'd have to delve into imaginary numbers…
</dontexplainthejoke>
It's interesting to hear that you're fine with all of this. Monies being taken for things that won't be delivered. Purchased launch products being pushed beyond the launch window (or potentially suffering the same fate of non-delivery). Ongoing scope creep, and its implications for more of the above.
Because, although the days of 10ftC extreme dreamscaping have died down, the continual addition of new ship functionalities is still continued scope creep, as you acknowledge.
How are owners of the Hull C [ship-to-station docking, 2013, $250], Endeavour [Science gameplay, 2014, $350], Polaris [Capital Ship, 2016, $750], Pioneer [Base building, 2017, $850], etc etc, meant to feel about their gameplay-laden ships being seemingly stuck in limbo as the conveyor belt continues? (Not to mention the apparent clash with other revenue streams / scope creeps, in terms of the land claim system & the Pioneer).
How are the owners of released ships with none of their USP functionality to feel? The Reclaimer, the Caterpillar, the Starfarer, the Constellation etc? How should all of these pre-purchasers feel about the odds of their ships getting completed? Given you've noted that CIG have dumped old pledges to favour new additions and directions of travel...
(I didn't even mention the enormous, tech-challenging, Javelin [2014, $3,000]. Go me
)
How are the owners of released ships with none of their USP functionality to feel? The Reclaimer, the Caterpillar, the Starfarer, the Constellation etc? How should all of these pre-purchasers feel about the odds of their ships getting completed? Given you've noted that CIG have dumped old pledges to favour new additions and directions of travel...
(I didn't even mention the enormous, tech-challenging, Javelin [2014, $3,000]. Go me
)It makes me wonder what they would have to cull from the launch package to make you consider those whales, and the nature of CIG's dealings with them.
Well, it's pretty obvious with what the stuff being internal. If it was external the pipeline would have a leak and that'd be bad.
It's more that to create a continuous function, we'd have to delve into imaginary numbers…
</dontexplainthejoke>
Why must you be so rational?
I do think that American law provides for some customer protection that would prevent such happening.It's interesting to hear that you're fine with all of this. Monies being taken for things that won't be delivered. Purchased launch products being pushed beyond the launch window (or potentially suffering the same fate of non-delivery). Ongoing scope creep, and its implications for more of the above.
Because, although the days of 10ftC extreme dreamscaping have died down, the continual addition of new ship functionalities is still continued scope creep, as you acknowledge.
How are owners of the Hull C [ship-to-station docking, 2013, $250], Endeavour [Science gameplay, 2014, $350], Polaris [Capital Ship, 2016, $750], Pioneer [Base building, 2017, $850], etc etc, meant to feel about their gameplay-laden ships being seemingly stuck in limbo as the conveyor belt continues? (Not to mention the apparent clash with other revenue streams / scope creeps, in terms of the land claim system & the Pioneer).
How are the owners of released ships with none of their USP functionality to feel? The Reclaimer, the Caterpillar, the Starfarer, the Constellation etc? How should all of these pre-purchasers feel about the odds of their ships getting completed? Given you've noted that CIG have dumped old pledges to favour new additions and directions of travel...
(I didn't even mention the enormous, tech-challenging, Javelin [2014, $3,000]. Go me
It makes me wonder what they would have to cull from the launch package to make you consider those whales, and the nature of CIG's dealings with them.
You mean redress after the event?
That'd only work if the company had the post-launch assets to pay (and the CEO's money wasn't locked up in a family trust) though right?
American law has been basically been put out of the way by using arbiter clause in their ToS - everything has to go through arbiter first. CI picks the arbiter. Guess what will the arbiter say ;3
A new official community hub for new players to get help.
https://massivelyop.com/2019/11/21/...n-plans-new-community-hub-and-free-fly-event/
Looks like you might be able to help in a more organized way Mole.....
And another pretty long free flight.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//17351-Anniversary-Promotion-Free-Fly-Details
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/17360-IAE-2949-Free-Fly-Jaxs-Picks
https://massivelyop.com/2019/11/21/...n-plans-new-community-hub-and-free-fly-event/
Looks like you might be able to help in a more organized way Mole.....
And another pretty long free flight.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//17351-Anniversary-Promotion-Free-Fly-Details
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/17360-IAE-2949-Free-Fly-Jaxs-Picks
Last edited:
Yep, we've been told times and times that SC is the most open and transparent development ever. Ha!
Personally speaking, and what i think they should have done, from a project management perspective, is to deliver on what they initially promised, made a game (that even back then was being marketed as the best damn space sim ever), taken perhaps 5-10 years to deliver that (because that is my rough estimate of what it would have taken to deliver the initial scope), and then, expanded on that if the game did well enough so they had funds for it.
Instead, what they did, was take an already massive proposition, and then multiplied the required work to meet delivery manyfold, thereby requiring backers to keep funding the game, not to achieve a full release of a first version, but to possible release a barebones MVP, that will be much less that the initially promised scope.
If SC fails to release, they may need a new community hub...
That addresses one of the biggest complaints about last years expo.
Super excited for it!
“You don’t understand game development.” %eats a cookie%
The thing is, I didn’t need to be a game industry insider to come to the conclusion that something isn’t kosher with Star Citizen’s development. I just needed enough information, and a basic understanding on how any kind of development project works. Software development in general, and game development in particular, isn’t so alien that the fundamentals of project management doesn’t apply.
Way back in 2012, I backed three games on Kickstarter, all of which had an estimated release date of 2014.
One released on time, with the features I expected it to have.
One released three years late, with only its “core” gameplay in place, thanks to needing a rewrite of one if its core game mechanics, in order accommodate actual player behavior, rather than anticipated player behavior. Due to poor sales, the developer reluctantly had to leave the one stretch goal unfulfilled a year after release. Nether-the-less, I feel the developer made an honest attempt at delivering what they promised, so I don’t feel ripped off... especially since the game was in a playable, though extremely primitive, state around the estimated time of release.
And then there’s Star Citizen. A game that is five years behind schedule, and systemically can’t meet their modest targets. A game that’s busy producing highly detailed art assets, but still doesn’t have key core mechanics in place, let alone its promised gameplay. A game whose Kickstarter pitch turned out to include several lies. A game around which dozens of shell companies have been created to evade granting players refunds, enrich Roberts and Friends, and ensure that backers can’t follow the money. A game that continually adds to its already considerable technical debt.
What provoked me to get a refund, successfully thank goodness, was all the shell companies. There’s no ethical reason to have dozens of them. That isn’t in any way good game development. It is, however, a way to hide money, to disguise money, and to remove money from a project, in order to evade paying people what was promised. It’s a common practice in Hollywood, so the studios don’t have to play their talent what they earned. It’s used by publishers so they don’t have to pay developers what they earned.
My question is: Who, exactly, is the target of Chris Robert’s “Hollywood Accounting?”
It's great to see that CIG have taken the inspiration of Frontier and replicated Elite's official Galactic Academy mentor community for use in Star Citizen.
https://community.elitedangerous.com/en/thegalacticacademy
https://community.elitedangerous.com/en/thegalacticacademy
They did? Oh, I guess it must be Tuesday again.
It's not? Oh, I guess they're just being behind the times again.
It does look like CIG is doing a bit more then putting a link to a discord server on a web page.
More akin to what FDev tried to do with multicrew.
They already tried doing that with first-iteration Spectrum, but it proved too tricky for them to implement…
Elite's multicrew requests are in-game. Star Citizen's guide requests are on their website and look to send private messages (forum/Spectrum?). So, like Discord thenIt does look like CIG is doing a bit more then putting a link to a discord server on a web page.
More akin to what FDev tried to do with multicrew.
- Status