Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Yes, there is a third option, even if it is the least likely.

SQ42 has been what? $45? they might actually be getting ready to release it in 6 moths or so and its going to be $75, so they want to take it off sale, not that its selling.... and then introduce its full price when it launches.

Hides
That would be option 2 though 😋

It is perfectly possible but the question is still the same, if that was the case why prevent now any sales altogether? There is no issue or conflict in keeping regular sales (as few as they may be) and then updating the sales point when required and ready. Mind you, if you say « incompetence » I can probably buy it too 😋
 
Last edited:
LOL

Not that it is really an excuse, because SC is buggy as hell, but.....

"Hey, there is a bug that is going to persist if I dont switch servers" - then keeps playing on the same server.

"A black door way of death and falling through the planet" - lets walk through that like a goober.

"Fall through the floor, keep walking around, and act surprised when I finally die (well, incapacitated)" - genious

"Log out the instant I go into incapacitated state" - you'd think he'd be aware the game has state syncing issues. suicide, wake up in hospital and then log out.

Did he just start playing yesterday? You gotta be smart enough to deal with reoccurring bugs if you are gonna try and "play". Or it is just an act. But why would you act that dumb?
The thing to guard against is agreeing that this is acceptable in a product that is being sold. It’s amusing, but not acceptable even if it is Star Citizen.
 
... And can't be seamlessly rolled out server-side but requires a new build.

Yeah, that is pretty concerning. Why would a new build be required to change some server side variables? If this is really the situation, it means CIG is in for some real headaches if they ever actually release.

Mainly though i think its a load of horse manure that Zyloh is spouting, he's just doing damage control and making stuff up.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Yeah, that is pretty concerning. Why would a new build be required to change some server side variables? If this is really the situation, it means CIG is in for some real headaches if they ever actually release.

Mainly though i think its a load of horse manure that Zyloh is spouting, he's just doing damage control and making stuff up.
I suspect changing the ship times has a knock on effect on performance and server stability since presumably there would be many more ships running around with shorter times? If that is the case a client update tweaking some related performance issues could make sense.
 
I hope not...

It could also be that the regulators told them to stop selling something that has been in development for 10 years, is still not in sight and has no end date.

Interesting theory, although the regulators haven't stepped in for worse things CIG are doing.

But regarding your "i hope not", seriously, its clear from the monthly reports, where they keep repeating the same stuff over and over again, and how much they are still working on and is required, SQ42 is not coming out in the next couple of years.
 
I suspect changing the ship times has a knock on effect on performance and server stability since presumably there would be many more ships running around with shorter times? If that is the case a client update tweaking some related performance issues could make sense.

The solution for players is clearly to buy more ships, then you never need to wait!
 
I hope not...

It could also be that the regulators told them to stop selling something that has been in development for 10 years, is still not in sight and has no end date.
It is perfectly possible but the question is still the same, if that was the case why prevent now any sales altogether?

Maybe the new EU directives have them scared?

Yep. Especially with the new EU directives too, which came into effect January 2022

What is it about?

In a similar manner to Directive (EU) 2019/771 concerning contracts for the sale of goods (the “SGD”, as discussed in a recent blog post here), the DCSD puts consumer protection first. It sets out both subjective and objective requirements for conformity, so the digital content or services must be fit for both any specified/agreed purposes and for purposes for which content or services of the same type would normally be used.

Under the DCSD, the business is liable for any failure to supply digital content or services, or any lack of conformity that exists at the time of supply and becomes apparent within two years (also referred to as a two-year warranty period).

Three remedies available to a consumer that receives non-conforming digital content/services are as follows: to have the content/service brought into conformity; to receive a proportionate reduction in price for the content/service (where a price has been paid); and (in certain cases, including where it is impossible or disproportionate to bring the content/service into conformity) to terminate the contract. The DCDS itself doesn’t address whether the consumer may receive damages for breach of contract by the trader, and so this matter was left to the discretion of member states.

Who and what does it apply to?

The DCSD applies to B2C sales contracts between a business and a consumer for the supply of digital content or services. It bites either where the consumer pays the business (or undertakes to pay a price) or provides personal data to the business (other than where such data is provided only for the purpose of supply).

SQ42 still not being out in 2 years seems quite feasible ;)
 
Maybe the new EU directives have them scared?

Max claim period of 6 years means some people who bought SQ42/SC are already out of luck, although i presume claims can't be backdated anyway, it only applies from when it went into effect. So probably more scared by the reverse burden of proof and failure to delivery bits. This could leave CIG wide open to claims for refunds in the coming years. I wonder what the directive's stance is on "pledges"... i'd guess they would also be considered sales.
 
Max claim period of 6 years means some people who bought SQ42/SC are already out of luck, although i presume claims can't be backdated anyway, it only applies from when it went into effect. So probably more scared by the reverse burden of proof and failure to delivery bits. This could leave CIG wide open to claims for refunds in the coming years. I wonder what the directive's stance is on "pledges"... i'd guess they would also be considered sales.
I really hope this is the reason. This "pledge" nonsense needs to end.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
This guy in the internetz says SC is not fun therefore it must be absolute truth:

 
my precious rare collectors item

hWYSW8f.png
 
Yes, there is a third option, even if it is the least likely.

SQ42 has been what? $45? they might actually be getting ready to release it in 6 moths or so and its going to be $75, so they want to take it off sale, not that its selling.... and then introduce its full price when it launches.

Hides
It's the more probable option in fact.
If CIG think it has enough funding till the sale of SQ42, they will remove the product at $45 and wait for the release to sell it at max price
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom