Star Citizen Discussions v7

Which would either void the clause, or the contract should CIG fail to remedy the situation by providing a date. Still, a couple years waiting for delivery seems like quite the undue delay, but these things are debatable because they are so unspecified in the law.

It simply means no agreed period was established and on top of that no delivery of anything has taken place.
 
I'll go one better and stick my neck out with a prediction - the next phase of refund denial will be them ignoring refund emails completely. Just watch.
 
Re. the refund/date thing: I think the text of their reply is significant:

It takes us time to look into the details [...] it will be a few weeks before we can give this request the detailed attention it requires

They're not outright denying a refund, but it buys them wiggle room: I'm pretty sure if you waved this in front of a court right now, they'd just just tell you come back in a couple of months.
My guess is they hope to put everyone off until there's a raft of new money from ParpCon & the $850 whale harvest, so they don't have start selling coffee machines on ebay.
 
Either there's a fraction of a second or there's a whole 24 hours of special screening.

Probably the latter, they have to pad the time somehow...

Edit: Actually, I just checked IMDB: Her character didn't even qualify for a name - just "Vic's Mom" - so maybe you can fit it into <1 minute. :D
 
Last edited:
Anyone in the UK who is struggling to get a refund can do one better - Cheshire East Trading Standards already have a case open on CIG and the reference number is AW- 13676387 (same ref number used by Citizen's Advice who will happily forward any enquiries to the Trading Standards office)

Citizen's Advice. It was there all along, just waiting for it's big moment. [haha]
 
Walking around in games is fine if walking around is the focus. Once you make flying around the main part, then walking is mainly a side issue, and sometimes even an annoyance if forced (eg: SC waking up in bed, walking to the bridge, etc). However, i still want it for ED, if only for the standing around looking at the landscape.... but i won't say that will make it a better game, just something i'd like to see.

Can FDev add space legs to ED?

Quite easily. In a sense, they've already it. Change the SRV model to a character and slow it down. You have space legs.

The real challenge with space legs is providing the content to make it worthwhile. Being able to walk around is impressive enough to make it desireable and put it on the to-do list....but without something to do, it can only ever be far down the list.

SC and CIG is discovering this for itself. Pilots meet mission givers in bars. ED uses a vid phone. SC pilots help stack cargo. ED does it behind the scenes with an automated cargo delivery setup.

Still...space legs offers the chance for some unique gameplay. It will require cities and bases to be procedurally generated. Where worlds would be populated with plants and animals, cities and stations would be populated with different NPCs. Cities would allow for exploration to find unique one of a kind items from merchants and ne'er do wells. Space legs would allow for EVA...for walking around ships and stations, for FPS, for exploring derelicts and asteroid bases.

But there's very little actual new gameplay that space legs would add. Its nice to.have...but not esssential.

ED could add space legs tomorrow..and FDev have experience in the procedural generation of cities. Its definitely doable. But it also needs to be done right.
 
Nuh-uh, because if I were realistic, I would have to concede that my space game might not beat your space game, and that would be the end of everything.

End of the day...NMS and ED and SC and other games such as DU are all trying to develop the same sort of game with a similar but not identical list of features.

It won't be good to have one win...because the genre also needs credible competition.

But the big difference looks like its going to be graphical style and feel more than the feature list.
 
Can FDev add space legs to ED?

Quite easily. In a sense, they've already it. Change the SRV model to a character and slow it down. You have space legs.

The real challenge with space legs is providing the content to make it worthwhile. Being able to walk around is impressive enough to make it desireable and put it on the to-do list....but without something to do, it can only ever be far down the list.

SC and CIG is discovering this for itself. Pilots meet mission givers in bars. ED uses a vid phone. SC pilots help stack cargo. ED does it behind the scenes with an automated cargo delivery setup.

Still...space legs offers the chance for some unique gameplay. It will require cities and bases to be procedurally generated. Where worlds would be populated with plants and animals, cities and stations would be populated with different NPCs. Cities would allow for exploration to find unique one of a kind items from merchants and ne'er do wells. Space legs would allow for EVA...for walking around ships and stations, for FPS, for exploring derelicts and asteroid bases.

But there's very little actual new gameplay that space legs would add. Its nice to.have...but not esssential.

ED could add space legs tomorrow..and FDev have experience in the procedural generation of cities. Its definitely doable. But it also needs to be done right.


I'm afraid of the yaffle, so my OT will be short. Legs in ED is a new layer, I can add new and meaningful gameplay, but! FDEV need to really think this one all the through. The BGS can be included, PP could be included if they did it right.

However it can be done. SC need to do the same consideration and so need to be sure that there is something to do with legs.
 
End of the day...NMS and ED and SC and other games such as DU are all trying to develop the same sort of game with a similar but not identical list of features.

It won't be good to have one win...because the genre also needs credible competition.

But the big difference looks like its going to be graphical style and feel more than the feature list.

I don't agree that these three game are or will ever be close enough to the same games to even compete with each other.

I have and like ED and NMS because they have huge galaxies, but even they, when compared, are much different games.

SC (what there is of it so far) is a much different game than those too mainly because it's not at all about a big galaxy and exploration.

SC will have a much bigger challenge completing with the AAA game scene than these other two games because that's what it's more like.

Other smaller space games like "Angles Fall First" are much more likely to compete with SC than the other two.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree that these three game are or will ever be close enough to the same games to even compete with each other.

I have and like ED and NMS because they have huge galaxies, but even they, when compared, are much different games.

SC (what there is of it so far) is a much different game than those too mainly because it's not at all about a big galaxy and exploration.

SC will have a much bigger challenge completing with the AAA game scene than these other two games because that's what it's more like.

Other smaller space games like "Angles Fall First" are much more likely to compete with SC than the other two.

I gotta agree that Star Citizen "tries" to be a different game then Elite Dangerous and NMS the thing is that it clearly fails to make any progress in that direction. Instead a lot of focus goes into underlining how superior it eventually will be sometime in the future when it releases as if that simple fact is a given and only a matter of time. Invested people take every opportunity to bash any competing game and talk them down as "lacking" or "boring" while the chosen focus of their attention lacks in not only the addressed areas but pretty much everything....after all Star Citizen desperately tries to achieve early access status which AS WELL is something of a futuristic assumption seeing as its current status hovers between alpha and tech demo.

Pretty much everything surrounding Star Citizen is theoretical and non-existing. In that regard Star Citizen "is" exactly nothing at the moment besides a dream. And the creators of that dream dont really provide evidence or show competence when it comes to making that dream a reality.

Angels fall first is interesting insofar that it is smaller in scope, has a much smaller development team, much less funding and STILL is ahead in progression when compared to Star Citizen. Pointing out all the things Star Citizen will have over Angels fall first which makes it better are at best a deflection or distraction when AFF is already better and further ahead in things Star Citizen "might" have one day.

For a project that has nothing to show like Star Citizen I find CiG and its fans being pretty outspoken and claiming a lot of attention when the best course of action clearly would be to run a low profile and wait with all the bragging until a presentable alpha version is available that not only demonstrates Star Citizens capabilities but also its teams competence to achieve everything they want to do. Its very possible that CiG "jumped the gun" and piped up way too early demanding attention and support it cannot satisfy. The result will be ugly no doubt about it.

My verdict?

Star Citizen is not a "game". At least not yet. It doesnt "deserve" to be called a game and be listed with other accomplished and successfully released games. Its this thing that rubs me off the wrong way a bit when people use it as an example presenting it like a released title. Pretty much every game continues its development after release, be it bug fixes, polishing or the addition of content. The difference is of course that all these games are actual games and not simple tech demos like Star Citizen.

I wont deny Star Citizen the option to "become" a game eventually but judging its management and the developer achievements we were able to observe so far I d guess it ll take a miracle to do. Complete failure becomes more and more probable with each passing week.
 
I gotta agree that Star Citizen "tries" to be a different game then Elite Dangerous and NMS the thing is that it clearly fails to make any progress in that direction. Instead a lot of focus goes into underlining how superior it eventually will be sometime in the future when it releases as if that simple fact is a given and only a matter of time. Invested people take every opportunity to bash any competing game and talk them down as "lacking" or "boring" while the chosen focus of their attention lacks in not only the addressed areas but pretty much everything....after all Star Citizen desperately tries to achieve early access status which AS WELL is something of a futuristic assumption seeing as its current status hovers between alpha and tech demo.

Pretty much everything surrounding Star Citizen is theoretical and non-existing. In that regard Star Citizen "is" exactly nothing at the moment besides a dream. And the creators of that dream dont really provide evidence or show competence when it comes to making that dream a reality.

Angels fall first is interesting insofar that it is smaller in scope, has a much smaller development team, much less funding and STILL is ahead in progression when compared to Star Citizen. Pointing out all the things Star Citizen will have over Angels fall first which makes it better are at best a deflection or distraction when AFF is already better and further ahead in things Star Citizen "might" have one day.

For a project that has nothing to show like Star Citizen I find CiG and its fans being pretty outspoken and claiming a lot of attention when the best course of action clearly would be to run a low profile and wait with all the bragging until a presentable alpha version is available that not only demonstrates Star Citizens capabilities but also its teams competence to achieve everything they want to do. Its very possible that CiG "jumped the gun" and piped up way too early demanding attention and support it cannot satisfy. The result will be ugly no doubt about it.

My verdict?

Star Citizen is not a "game". At least not yet. It doesnt "deserve" to be called a game and be listed with other accomplished and successfully released games. Its this thing that rubs me off the wrong way a bit when people use it as an example presenting it like a released title. Pretty much every game continues its development after release, be it bug fixes, polishing or the addition of content. The difference is of course that all these games are actual games and not simple tech demos like Star Citizen.

I wont deny Star Citizen the option to "become" a game eventually but judging its management and the developer achievements we were able to observe so far I d guess it ll take a miracle to do. Complete failure becomes more and more probable with each passing week.


You nailed it, only a Jesus patch will resurrect SC into what it want to become.

$160.000.000 and counting
6 years and counting

There should have been a lot more than what we got by now.
 
You nailed it, only a Jesus patch will resurrect SC into what it want to become.

$160.000.000 and counting
6 years and counting

There should have been a lot more than what we got by now.

We did.
This game's development has been an endless source of entertainment.
The meta end-game is approaching.
 
So much anger about this forum thread https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart..._a_twitchcon_panellr/?st=j92dfh90&sh=8def3c62

Probably less about this thread and more about a certain individual having posted here in the past, given how hung up these guys are over said individual.

The toxicity on both sides is something that produces a feeling of disappointment in humanity in me. That either side is so invested that they throw away reasonable and respectful discourse saddens me. I don't care how wrong someone else is, you should never hand away your own self respect by abusing people.
 
So much anger about this forum thread https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart..._a_twitchcon_panellr/?st=j92dfh90&sh=8def3c62

Probably less about this thread and more about a certain individual having posted here in the past, given how hung up these guys are over said individual.

We care a lot about the BDSSE, the shills, and CIG
We care a lot about Croberts and we cop for Derek S
We care a lot about the little things, the bigger things we top
We care a lot about you people yeah you bet we care a lot, yeah


It's a dirty job but someones gotta do it
 
I don't agree that these three game are or will ever be close enough to the same games to even compete with each other.

I have and like ED and NMS because they have huge galaxies, but even they, when compared, are much different games.

SC (what there is of it so far) is a much different game than those too mainly because it's not at all about a big galaxy and exploration.

SC will have a much bigger challenge completing with the AAA game scene than these other two games because that's what it's more like.

Other smaller space games like "Angles Fall First" are much more likely to compete with SC than the other two.

SC is an MMO based space combat/trading sim with exploration, FPS, resource gathering and a degree of open gameplay.

Or hopes to be at any rate.

Comparing with ED for example shows both have...or will have...pretty much the same feature list. In both, you'll pretty much be able do in one what you can do in the other. The big difference is more how the feature is implemented.

ED uses a P2P networking model for example which has its own set of pros and cons compared to the more server based system SC is planning.

While it is difficult to compate ED with SC as SC isn't released and the flight model still not finalised and debateable, ED has a more sim like feel while SC feels more arcadey.

Now, while SC plans to have perhaps 150 worlds, 100 of them perhaps available on launch if CIGs plan come together, that size won't really impact on the game too much.

The universe might feel smaller and it'll be interesting to see how CIG can keep exploration viable with such a small number of worlds but in terms of features both plan to end up with similar features.

Base building seems to be the one feature that FDev are shying away from...but even here, squadrons are getting the option for their own home base (which will inevitably leads to calls for the ability to customise it) while surface outposts for mining, etc are still being considered. So again, that would be more of a difference in how to implement the feature.

Although.....with "ten million" players, how will CIG plan on keeping exploration interesting?
 
While it is difficult to compate ED with SC as SC isn't released and the flight model still not finalised and debateable, ED has a more sim like feel while SC feels more arcadey.

Given CIGs previous comments about making “tweaks” to the flight model, I’m inclined to believe the current lousy flight model is close to the final form. It will never be much more realistic than it is now, and it was my main complaint with 2.6 when I tried it out.

Now, while SC plans to have perhaps 150 worlds, 100 of them perhaps available on launch if CIGs plan come together, that size won't really impact on the game too much.

Yet in 6 years they’ve managed negative one systems. So they’re not working on the flight model and they’re not adding systems... but oh look, another Ship Sale that punches above it’s weight. Priorities. Gameplay doesn’t pay for the lights after all.
 
Back
Top Bottom