Page 346 of 660 FirstFirst ... 341344345346347348351 ... LastLast
Results 5,176 to 5,190 of 9896

Thread: The Star Citizen Thread v8

  1. #5176
    Originally Posted by Merkir View Post (Source)
    I think CR lied.

  2. #5177
    Originally Posted by ZeeWolf View Post (Source)
    Is that true? Not heard that one.
    That's from 2016 and it came from a CIG ex-employee. That isn't something that came up via a rumourmill.

  3. #5178
    Originally Posted by Merkir View Post (Source)
    While I agree you've interpreted it the way most people would, and should, if I'm being pedantic I'd say the court document statement doesn't necessary mean CR was lying at the kickstarter. If only CIG or only RSI were working on it prior to 5.5 years ago, or anyone else for that matter (eg. CR personally, not under a company banner), then CR can simply say that. Did the kickstarter actually say that CIG and RSI were working on the project prior to the kickstarter?

    Having said all of that, I'm going with the most obvious interpretation... ie. I think CR lied.
    Crytek created a proof of concept demo prior to selling RSI a licence - I didn't know this was common practice for engines but it seems that it is. This is part of Crytek's lawsuit - they claim that they alone created the demo that Chris pitched on Kickstarter, that was the big carrier ship and Chris walked around it for a bit then demoed one of the fighter ships and its thruster physics.

    CIG have not refuted this and instead appear to confirm it with the dates they have given in this latest court document for "development starting".

    So there are now two documents in this court case, one from each company, and both of them make Chris Robert's claim that RSI had been working on this thing for over a year prior to pitching it on kickstarter look like a lie. How important that is or how significant that is depends on your point of view I suppose, but where this gets nasty for Chris is if the accounting that Skadden Arp will without question be getting their hands on shows that Chris Roberts did in fact pay himself a wage for a year's work that he didn't do.

    Probably worth mentioning that CIG's original terms of service contained a guarantee that this accounting would be opened up to all backers after a specific date if the game was not released, but that guarantee was removed.

  4. #5179
    Originally Posted by Cobra1984 View Post (Source)
    Crytek created a proof of concept demo prior to selling RSI a licence - I didn't know this was common practice for engines but it seems that it is. This is part of Crytek's lawsuit - they claim that they alone created the demo that Chris pitched on Kickstarter, that was the big carrier ship and Chris walked around it for a bit then demoed one of the fighter ships and its thruster physics.

    CIG have not refuted this and instead appear to confirm it with the dates they have given in this latest court document for "development starting".

    So there are now two documents in this court case, one from each company, and both of them make Chris Robert's claim that RSI had been working on this thing for over a year prior to pitching it on kickstarter look like a lie. How important that is or how significant that is depends on your point of view I suppose, but where this gets nasty for Chris is if the accounting that Skadden Arp will without question be getting their hands on shows that Chris Roberts did in fact pay himself a wage for a year's work that he didn't do.

    Probably worth mentioning that CIG's original terms of service contained a guarantee that this accounting would be opened up to all backers after a specific date if the game was not released, but that guarantee was removed.
    Yes, as you said, Crytek created a proof of concept demo and CIG haven't refuted that. But as to when development started, it comes down to how much work CR did prior to the kickstarter, quite possibly on a personal/private basis. It seems impossible he did no work. At the bare minimum we can assume he said to Crytek, "make this ship fly here, change that pixel to blue" (*cough* *cough*), and that he did work to create and submit the kickstarter. So that's the bare minimum, but at most, he may claim that he worked full time, designing ships, lore, doing research, recruiting, etc. Again, being pedantic, I don't see how the court documents by themselves prove he was lying about when development started.

    What would be very amusing is if, during discovery, he is required to provide time sheets for his work prior to the kickstarter, especially to justify his year back pay, and other claims made regarding the Crytek vs. CIG/CR work at that time.

  5. #5180
    Originally Posted by Merkir View Post (Source)
    What would be very amusing is if, during discovery, he is required to provide time sheets for his work prior to the kickstarter, especially to justify his year back pay, and other claims made regarding the Crytek vs. CIG/CR work at that time.
    That would assume he did any form of record keeping at that point which is a big assumption. Short of creating records after the event and running this risk of perjury, I don't see it happening.

  6. #5181
    progress continues - with two weeks to go it's excitement all round

    Saving a customized character and quickly loading into the PU should no longer result in the player turning into a white ball.

  7. #5182
    Originally Posted by Cobra1984 View Post (Source)
    Chris also said he paid himself a year's back salary for development on the kickstarter pitch video, out of kickstarter funds.
    I remember at some point in 2013 "Star Citizen" (the IP) got sold by "Chris Roberts" (the private person) to "Cloud Imperium Games" for three million dollars.

    Of course, this is just another case of a fraudulent Kickstarter, because it means the company ("CIG") advertising "Star Citizen" on Kickstarter didn't even own the IP it asked money for while pretending it does.

    Being deceived by Chris Roberts we essentially backed the wrong company, which not only didn't own a WIP gameplay implementation, it also didn't own the IP itself. It was an empty shell to collect money with smoke & mirrors.

    Originally Posted by Cobra1984 View Post (Source)
    So there are now two documents in this court case, one from each company, and both of them make Chris Robert's claim that RSI had been working on this thing for over a year prior to pitching it on kickstarter look like a lie. How important that is or how significant that is depends on your point of view I suppose, but where this gets nasty for Chris is if the accounting that Skadden Arp will without question be getting their hands on shows that Chris Roberts did in fact pay himself a wage for a year's work that he didn't do.
    That's mostly important for previous Kickstarter backers, who bought in in 2012, expecting to get to play that WIP gameplay shown in the pitch video. It's not important for people who bought in in 2014 and beyond, because why should they care? It doesn't matter for them.

  8. #5183
    I bet he wished he’d licensed it and not sold - for $3M per annum

  9. #5184
    Originally Posted by Backer42 View Post (Source)
    I remember at some point in 2013 "Star Citizen" (the IP) got sold by "Chris Roberts" (the private person) to "Cloud Imperium Games" for three million dollars.

    Of course, this is just another case of a fraudulent Kickstarter, because it means the company ("CIG") advertising "Star Citizen" on Kickstarter didn't even own the IP it asked money for while pretending it does.

    Being deceived by Chris Roberts we essentially backed the wrong company, which not only didn't own a WIP gameplay implementation, it also didn't own the IP itself. It was an empty shell to collect money with smoke & mirrors.


    That's mostly important for previous Kickstarter backers, who bought in in 2012, expecting to get to play that WIP gameplay shown in the pitch video. It's not important for people who bought in in 2014 and beyond, because why should they care? It doesn't matter for them.
    The $3m was a hot topic in 2016, it was indeed taken out of the company. I've had conversations about that with different folks and I'm pretty certain it's been discussed on twitter and SA.

    The $1dollar shares that the execs sold back for vast fortunes was the other example of large scale cash leaving the company, albeit via a legit mechanism. That's all public, anyone can look that up.

    The company they created recently in the uk for licensing remains a mystery.

    As for 2014 customers not caring about the original pitch - that wasn't my point. The guarantee of financial transparency which was removed is what I'm pointing to.

    That guarantee added value to sales by way of confidence. Removing it devalues the sale and removes confidence.

    The original pitch, original investors, the original terms of service and the original devs are all gone.

    Their relationship with Crytek is also gone.

    It has failed catastrophically and the idealogical component propping it up via ship sales, land sales, tank sales and soon we'll see property sales - is the single most interesting thing in all of this.

  10. #5185

  11. #5186
    Originally Posted by Asp Explorer View Post (Source)
    I bet he wished he’d licensed it and not sold - for $3M per annum
    You remember how Lucasfilm made the vast majority of their Star Wars profits by licensing out the images of the millenium falcon, x-wings etc to toy companies in the 70s and 80s?

    CIG registered 'CIG Licensing' very recently.

    The only companies needing a license would be the Foundrys in UK and Germany.

    Great way to hide cash from an impending lawsuit discovery!

  12. #5187
    Has there been any word from the Avocados about how 3.1 performs yet?

  13. #5188
    Originally Posted by McGlashan View Post (Source)
    Has there been any word from the Avocados about how 3.1 performs yet?
    Only spotted one leaked image so far. Havent seen any footage or read any experience reports. CiG really has the lid down on this one or maybe there is nothing to report? No idea.

  14. #5189
    Originally Posted by McGlashan View Post (Source)
    Has there been any word from the Avocados about how 3.1 performs yet?
    NDAs?

    Originally Posted by Cobra1984 View Post (Source)
    You remember how Lucasfilm made the vast majority of their Star Wars profits by licensing out the images of the millenium falcon, x-wings etc to toy companies in the 70s and 80s?

    CIG registered 'CIG Licensing' very recently.

    The only companies needing a license would be the Foundrys in UK and Germany.

    Great way to hide cash from an impending lawsuit discovery!
    That's interesting..... CIG, the only gaming company with more shells than a beach

  15. #5190
    Originally Posted by McGlashan View Post (Source)
    Has there been any word from the Avocados about how 3.1 performs yet?
    Why would it perform significantly better? And if it did, why would that matter, considering how much of the project has yet to be designed and implemented, likely making optimizations at this point much less relevant?