Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Mole HD]

I didn’t suggest people spending money with CIG have to feel abused. I suspect some do, and some like yourself don’t . I do think SC is abusing the market though, to the point where discussing the potential of fraud can be relevant.

Ci¬G have an extremely successful marketing department...whereas I wholeheartedly agree the marketing strategies used are dubious and predatory, I don't for one minute suspect any fraud. They're selling digital products and the distant far off dream of a game or games behind those products...nothing more.

 

[Factabulous]

Some people have spare money and they throw it at things others don't rate. It happens. At least with SC you get to play with spaceships when you buy a jpeg ...

NFT marketplace OpenSea valued at more than $13bn - BBC News

Worldwide trade in digital collectables was worth $40.9bn (£30.1bn) last year, a report suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Ci¬G have an extremely successful marketing department...whereas I wholeheartedly agree the marketing strategies used are dubious and predatory, I don't for one minute suspect any fraud. They're selling digital products and the distant far off dream of a game or games behind those products...nothing more.

The fraud element would only come into play if it could be proven that CIG management knew they couldn't deliver on what they promised.

Would be a tough thing to prove.

 

[VR Golgot]

Discussing Ci¬G's finances...fine. All the other private spending is none of your business (nor mine), full stop. I'm here to discuss the game, or lack of it, poke ridicule at Chris Roberts and have a rant at the insane development and mismanagement continually evident in the project.
Poking fun or making a deliberate point on what any private individual likes to spend on pixel spaceships...I can't see the public interest factor at all outside of creating or perpetuating a witch hunting 'them and us' mentality. Am I therefore one of 'them'? ...Since having spent a fair bit on the project, I can't possibly be one of the us's

Like, I know that this stuff gets your back up because you feel like you're being lumped into the same grouping. But I don't use any polarising 'them and us' language when discussing these guys. I never paint them as exemplar backers etc. Or all whale-tier spenders as being the same.

I discuss these examples precisely because they pertain to the insane development and mismanagement (and mis-selling of the same) that you mention. They speak to that big SC picture, and that is why each one is relevant. And you objecting every single time they're mentioned is fairly absurd. The big spenders who peg their spending to dreams.txt are relevant to the SC story. The big refunders who give up on the project because of what they know of it are relevant to the story. And the big spenders who are absolutely happy with their fleet of shiny concepts and flyable realities are also relevant to the story.

I may take the mick out of some of them, particularly if they're singing a 'Things Can Only Get Better' song while discussing endemic dysfunction in the game. But that's more of an attack on those CIG practices than the individual for being duped by them. (And seeing as you're not duped by them in that way, I don't see why you feel personally attacked to be honest.)

All I can say is, the gaming world is going to continue to be interested in this stuff for as long as SC is a thing. Where the money comes from, and how CIG attracts it. Getting annoyed about it seems fruitless. It's going to keep happening ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[VR Golgot]

At least with SC you get to play with spaceships when you buy a jpeg ...

NFT marketplace OpenSea valued at more than $13bn - BBC News

Worldwide trade in digital collectables was worth $40.9bn (£30.1bn) last year, a report suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

True. But being better than the latest con du jour is setting the bar pretty low

 

[Viajero]

Even if there was actual fraud it would be quite difficult to prove. There are though, always arguably, many signs and clues hinting heavily at it. It is totally legitimate that some people want to discuss it (and backers self professed spending motivations are just one of the critical insights into it).

I don’t expect CIG to allow discussions on the matter in their own forums for obvious reasons, their house their rules. But anywhere else in the internet can probably be fair game.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

No...it isn't. It's curtain twitching at it's very worst.

Let me ask you this. Considering how much I've spent on the project overall, not ignoring that I refunded my first account and how vehemently I criticise the project, it's marketing and it's mismanagement and always have done despite still having a fair sized financial stake in the project... do you class me as a 'Them' or an 'Us'?

There is only one way to find out and that is a fight in the Thunderdome between the two of you! Yes.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Agony Aunt, Champion of v12 against Mole HD, endurer of Accountancy!

 

[LittleAnt]

cargo type doesn’t matter when the “freigther” is designed around fixed size containers. A semi can attach a flatbed or luiquid-tank, etc.

I could be wrong but I think the new mustang cargo was designed using same concept used by Aurora’s Stor-All container.

we can argue whether that’s a bug or limitation, but the fact that bigger and more expensive ships have abe working cargo grid but the “starter” ships still have that functionally missing… is astonishing.

Again you don't know how cargo grid and packages works on SC.

Fact 1 : cargo are only placed/removed on/from the cargo grid automatically by the game.
Fact 2 : Packages can be manually placed and removed everywhere in the ship (on a cargo grid, cabin, corridor, etc) by the player as long as there is physical space to do so
Fact 3 : you can walk and manually place things on the cargo grid of big ships. The things you place (package, friends, vehicle, etc) are not seen as cargo by the game.
Fact 4 : You can't walk inside the cargo grid of small ships (Aurora, Mustang) because the space is too tiny and closed.

To make an analogy.
If you have a truck with a big cabin, you can manually place a big box/small box in the inside of the ship (cabin) or walk in your cargo grid (the container) and put the box in it. That's what you can do in big ships

An Aurora is like a tiny truck with closed container. You can't open the container (only trade terminals can put/remove cargo in it) but you can put small boxes in the cabin (not big boxes)

A mustang is like a truck without cabin. You can't open the container (only trade terminals can put/remove cargo in it) and you can't put small boxes in the cabin (because no cabin).

 

[LittleAnt]

The yacht thing is something skeptics have been misled over. There is no proof CR actually owns a yacht. If we are to trust Sandi (ok, its a stretch) the yacht trip was a present from her for CR for his birthday. If true, then there is no reason for anyone to complain about it. A birthday present is a birthday present... can't complain about that. Well... unless of course someone said this...

CR : "excuse me Sandy, I can't go in the yatch you have rented for my birthday because I've said in 2013 that if I buy a yatch and put a photo of me, people will be upset and they will not understand I was only talking about buying a boat and not renting it or going on a yatch's friend. I'm doomed, I will not be able in my whole life to put a foot on a yatch...

 

[Viajero]

CR : "excuse me Sandy, I can't go in the yatch you have rented for my birthday because I've said in 2013 that if I buy a yatch and put a photo of me, people will be upset and they will not understand I was only talking about buying a boat and not renting it or going on a yatch's friend. I'm doomed, I will not be able in my whole life to put a foot on a yatch...

You are right of course. In principle.

But there is also something called fiduciary responsibility, and leading by example. Neither of which Chris Roberts seems conversant with when it comes to demonstrate he may actually be acting as a prudent stewart and care taker of backers money. Letting yourself being photographed in a yacht like that would probably be high on the “not to do” list of anyone who actually believed in that ethical duty and felt obligated to prudently administer those funds offered by backers in good will.

Another thing such a prudent person would probably consider (and that Chris Roberts doesn’t seem to be doing either) would be to minimize all perks, salaries etc for the management team at least until those backer funds had yielded a reasonable released result. Never mind use them to pay himself dividends.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

You are right of course. In principle.

But there is also something called fiduciary responsibility, and leading by example. Neither of which Chris Roberts seems conversant with when it comes to demonstrate he may actually be acting as a prudent stewart and care taker of backers money. Letting yourself being photographed in a yacht like that would probably be high on the “not to do” list of anyone who actually believed in that ethical duty and felt obligated to prudently administer those funds offered by backers in good will.

Another thing such a prudent person would probably consider (and that Chris Roberts doesn’t seem to be doing) would be to minimize all perks, salaries etc for the management team at least until those backer funds had yielded a reasonable released result. Never mind use them to pay himself dividends.

That is all peanuts against claiming cash, assets and company that consists mainly of backer money for himself.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

CR : "excuse me Sandy, I can't go in the yatch you have rented for my birthday because I've said in 2013 that if I buy a yatch and put a photo of me, people will be upset and they will not understand I was only talking about buying a boat and not renting it or going on a yatch's friend. I'm doomed, I will not be able in my whole life to put a foot on a yatch...

Oh come on, you don't see the irony in CR's statement in relation to it?

 

[LittleAnt]

You are right of course. In principle.
But there is also something called fiduciary responsibility, and leading by example.

"fiduciary responsibility" ? We are talking about a picture (probably posted by Sandy) of CR on a yatch during his birthday's vacation...

Letting yourself being photographed in a yacht like that would probably be high on the “not to do” list"...

Absolutly not. You talk about him like he was poor before CIG and he is just allowed to earn less than 4k$ / month during the whole SC project. Fun fact, it's absolutly normal that he earns a good amount of money each months. And when you earn a good amount of money, it's absolutly normal to spend it on things that low income peoples can't buy/rent.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Of course, then there is this...

 

[LittleAnt]

Oh come on, you don't see the irony in CR's statement in relation to it?

There is irony. But there is only irony, nothing else. Nothing that justify that you post personnal pictures of CR/Sandy's vacations on the web regularly since several years...

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

"fiduciary responsibility" ? We are talking about a picture (probably posted by Sandy) of CR on a yatch during his birthday's vacation...


Absolutly not. You talk about him like he was poor before CIG and he is just allowed to earn less than 4k$ / month during the whole SC project. Fun fact, it's absolutly normal that he earns a good amount of money each months. And when you earn a good amount of money, it's absolutly normal to spend it on things that low income peoples can't buy/rent.

He earns more than a "good amount" of money. He abuses his control to milk the company for himself and his cronies. There is no oversight, he acts without supervision as if it all was his property. In essence he embezzled the company for himself.

 

[Zetta]

"fiduciary responsibility" ? We are talking about a picture (probably posted by Sandy) of CR on a yatch during his birthday's vacation...


Absolutly not. You talk about him like he was poor before CIG and he is just allowed to earn less than 4k$ / month during the whole SC project. Fun fact, it's absolutly normal that he earns a good amount of money each months. And when you earn a good amount of money, it's absolutly normal to spend it on things that low income peoples can't buy/rent.

Working overtime to defend Chris' e-honour. Why is that?

 

[LittleAnt]

Working overtime to defend Chris' e-honour. Why is that?

Working overtime to destroy Chris' e-honour. Why is that?

 

[Xink]

Chris Roberts is the CEO and co-founder of a company that has raised over $400M from the general public to make game(s). He is a public person. His publicly shared information, shared by himself or his family, is absolutely justified in being used to criticise or flatter him as the case may be.

When this person publicly discloses timelines for the game(s) his crowd funded company is supposedly developing which are missed, time and time again, over a period of a decade and counting, posting pictures of yourself on the back of a yacht somewhere, or showing off newly purchased Porsches, $4.7M mansions in the LA hills is ripe for criticism. As it should be.

Idk what motivation anyone could possibly have for defending such a person.

As the Forbes article put it:

Up to a point, Roberts has been transparent about where the money has been going. He released years’ worth of financial statements last December. But he won’t say how much he or other top Cloud Imperium execs have made from the project. His wife and his brother both work in senior positions at the company.

Where are the games Chris. What is the release date for SC. No, don't give me "what is release anyway" manure. Is it released or not. Yes or no. Stop waving your hands. No I don't want to buy an Idris. Where is SQ42 Chris. It's 8 years late at this point. Do you have a release date or not. No don't tell me "it will be done when it's done".

You are not ID Software circa 1999 with multiple record breaking games under your belt and your own money to burn on whatever game you want. You took the public's money under the guise of developing a game by 2014.

That's the only kind of interview I want to see with Chris. These are all factual. But time and time again "journalists" allow him to control the narrative and waffle on and on about "armchair developers" that pay his bills and oh btw we have a ship sale on now as it just so happens. And these same people Chris loves to patronise then turn around and defend his actions all over the Internet like some kind of simp developer army.

Pathetic.