You could ask for a refund.
The Star Citizen Thread v 3.0
- Thread starter Jenner
- Start date
- Status
this is so much better then original ac, still inferior to anything Elite does though imho.
No he couldn't... Since they keep changing the EULA clause that specifies after waht date can owners ask for refunds if the game isn't out... Funny how always cca month before the specified date they suddenly update eula and postpone it. Almost as if... they were short on money... But surely, that cannot be the case with them having 90 million dollars at their disposal...
Last edited:
People have been getting refunds for weeks now, from even before the Escapist debacle, CIG are just keeping very quiet about it for obvious reasons.
Anyone know if post kickstarter backers are getting refunds?
Anybody who is interested in trying out Star Citizen for free until the 24th of October.
Go to this link: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/promotions/citizencon2k15 and at Step 2 enter this code: CITCONFLIGHT2K15
Download and check out Star Citizen this promotion demo includes all ships that are playable. Everything you will be able to try out it is ticked on this link here: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/project-status
Last edited:
I really cannot be bothered. I understood at the time that putting money in was a risk, and over the many months I have put in about £150 (not all at once). But no more will be coming from me until I see something I like about the flight & space combat. Currently, I don't like it, I don't find it fun, and I have tried to persist with it as some have suggested. The game does 'look' really good, cannot argue that the graphics and fidelity are really well done - but there's no gaming fun for me there at the moment.
My advice to all who ask me about SC is simply to wait, do not invest at this time, and do not enter promo code IAMASUCKER
Last edited:
Mu77ley
Volunteer Moderator
Finally managed to sit down and watch some (not all) of the footage.
As expected, the Squadron 42 stuff looks like it could be a lot of fun, although the writing in the senate speech was execrable. It's the sort of cheese-laden rubbish trotted out in umpteen bad games and B-movies. This was also expected though, as it's Chris Roberts and he's never been known for quality writing and/or directing.
The actual gameplay footage didn't show much more than we'd already seen, and in general seemed to be rather simplistic from a gameplay point of view (fly out, shoot some ships, EVA into a structure and press a Use button). Also, as before the whole thing looks great (sans the still shonky animations, which hopefully are WIP) until the ships start flying, and then the whole thing just looks awful. Why the hell they've not spent more effort on getting the flight model fun in a space sim is beyond me.
It's also very odd, that they spent a whole ton of money the other year on building their own mo-cap studio (which was actually a stretch goal), but then go ahead and rent out 3 months of (probably very expensive) time at Ealing studios? Sounds like lots of money down the drain?
IMNSHO, Squadron 42 could be a fun little game (if they ever finish it), but for me the Persistent Universe looks like it will be a dead duck.
Last edited:
I actually liked what I saw from citizencon.
The only things i have issue with is i'm still not a fan of the flight model, and some of the animation sequences start giving me the FPS nausea after a while.
But for the first time in a long time I've felt like we might actually get a game after all (still a ways off though).
The only things i have issue with is i'm still not a fan of the flight model, and some of the animation sequences start giving me the FPS nausea after a while.
But for the first time in a long time I've felt like we might actually get a game after all (still a ways off though).
The mini-PU stuff looks fairly promising, from an overall gameplay perspective. It looks like all those elements are coming together.
Did anyone else notice the massive screen tearing occurring during that demo though? It was almost unwatchable...or was that on my end?
And yes, the FM...when that Constellation made the 90 degree turn away from the comm station, I half expected the player standing on the bridge to get slammed into the other side and pop like a water balloon. It turns faster than the pea-shooting Starflier in Freelancer and that is just silly. I get it is a WIP but couldn't they have just halved the thruster power to at least make it seem bigger???? Oh and that landing...I've only been flying the fighters, so I suspected the touch and go nature of it was due to their very low weight coupled with powerful thrusters....but seeing the Constellation behave exactly the same way was just disappointing. Where is the drift...what physics engine doesn't model inertia...what is going on here???!!!??
The SQ42 demo was fairly pleasant to watch but I was hoping to see some gameplay in there, too. I think the most we saw was the player selecting a dialogue option, woo...I was really hoping to see how the character would interact with some visual elements like a ship status display or some kind of map or some of the AR stuff. Walking around a level...yeah, been there done that like a 100 times. I did lol when the person controlling the character tried to avoid the really bad clipping going on when the fella with the cargo came down the hall to speak to them....but that can be fixed.
As for the dialogue, I haven't watched the speech yet but, personally, I'm okay with the cheese...actually I like cheesy story lines but only as long as the game seems aware that it is cheesy. If they are trying to be really serious but it only comes off as badly directed and cheesy...then I won't be too compelled.
That said, I do look forward to the SC2.0...it will be fun to finally take my Aurora MR and hide out around some asteroids.
Did anyone else notice the massive screen tearing occurring during that demo though? It was almost unwatchable...or was that on my end?
And yes, the FM...when that Constellation made the 90 degree turn away from the comm station, I half expected the player standing on the bridge to get slammed into the other side and pop like a water balloon. It turns faster than the pea-shooting Starflier in Freelancer and that is just silly. I get it is a WIP but couldn't they have just halved the thruster power to at least make it seem bigger???? Oh and that landing...I've only been flying the fighters, so I suspected the touch and go nature of it was due to their very low weight coupled with powerful thrusters....but seeing the Constellation behave exactly the same way was just disappointing. Where is the drift...what physics engine doesn't model inertia...what is going on here???!!!??
The SQ42 demo was fairly pleasant to watch but I was hoping to see some gameplay in there, too. I think the most we saw was the player selecting a dialogue option, woo...I was really hoping to see how the character would interact with some visual elements like a ship status display or some kind of map or some of the AR stuff. Walking around a level...yeah, been there done that like a 100 times. I did lol when the person controlling the character tried to avoid the really bad clipping going on when the fella with the cargo came down the hall to speak to them....but that can be fixed.
As for the dialogue, I haven't watched the speech yet but, personally, I'm okay with the cheese...actually I like cheesy story lines but only as long as the game seems aware that it is cheesy. If they are trying to be really serious but it only comes off as badly directed and cheesy...then I won't be too compelled.
That said, I do look forward to the SC2.0...it will be fun to finally take my Aurora MR and hide out around some asteroids.
Last edited:
I really cannot be bothered. I understood at the time that putting money in was a risk, and over the many months I have put in about £150 (not all at once). But no more will be coming from me until I see something I like about the flight & space combat. Currently, I don't like it, I don't find it fun, and I have tried to persist with it as some have suggested. The game does 'look' really good, cannot argue that the graphics and fidelity are really well done - but there's no gaming fun for me there at the moment.
My advice to all who ask me about SC is simply to wait, do not invest at this time, and do not enter promo code IAMASUCKER
Just to say on this, I'm not advocating either way but this sort of thing confuses me.
Given a refund is probably available to you if you asked, in real terms there is no difference at all between you and a new investor thinking about putting £150 in.
You choose not to take the refund but presumably if you were a new backer today you wouldn't put the money in?
I'm wondering, what's the difference between the two and what keeps you from asking for your money back?
(Feel free to ignore the question if you want, it's just I see a lot of backers saying similar things)
Last edited:
why dont they just videotape cutscenes hollywood style in front of a greenscreen? like they did with wing commander, command & conquer etc. all this 3D motion capture thing seems like a lot of work for little return.
we dont need a movie, some short clips with prominent actors will do fine.
we dont need a movie, some short clips with prominent actors will do fine.
Last edited:
I really think the word 'investor' shouldn't be used in our context. It carries with it such a huge amount of crap ..
And before you flame me for holding on to a word, I think CIG has a policy about their customers being called 'backers' always.
I admittedly haven't backed into SC. I didn't really consider it before and now it's totally off the charts.
Risking being banal, as a game dev (and far from the best), I can envision what they're building technically and can appreciate the technical challenge and complexity CIG is facing with this game. It really is big. And yes, I am adding 'the cost of doing business' as a necessity.
However given their income, their employee count and the state that they claim the project to be in .... it doesn't add up. Granted - not by a mountain, but by more than it should.
They are either not showing more mature tech (no, a PG terrain prototype doesn't count) that they have cooking .. or they really burned a lot of man-hours on doing websites, ships, videos, or simply redoing a lot of work that doesn't live up to a certain someone's standard. I don't know which one is true but what will tell us at least something for the future of SC is CIG's financial statements.
And before you flame me for holding on to a word, I think CIG has a policy about their customers being called 'backers' always.
I admittedly haven't backed into SC. I didn't really consider it before and now it's totally off the charts.
Risking being banal, as a game dev (and far from the best), I can envision what they're building technically and can appreciate the technical challenge and complexity CIG is facing with this game. It really is big. And yes, I am adding 'the cost of doing business' as a necessity.
However given their income, their employee count and the state that they claim the project to be in .... it doesn't add up. Granted - not by a mountain, but by more than it should.
They are either not showing more mature tech (no, a PG terrain prototype doesn't count) that they have cooking .. or they really burned a lot of man-hours on doing websites, ships, videos, or simply redoing a lot of work that doesn't live up to a certain someone's standard. I don't know which one is true but what will tell us at least something for the future of SC is CIG's financial statements.
Last edited:
Can't do the green screen thing anymore...first of all, it looks pretty terrible and I'm pretty sure it would get any game dev completely derided by all their peers for doing something they all agreed was terrible back in the 90s.
Personally, I'd preferred they modeled the characters by hand, and replaced the big actors with 10 times the number of high quality voice actors.
looks terrible? entire movies has been made that way. and it looked fine even 10 years ago
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346156/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346156/
Despite my current feeling about the progress of the game so far, and how it's all going, I do still hold out some hope that something decent will come out in the wash, eventually. I am not yet at the point where I am motivated enough to expend the effort in chasing a refund - I'm just completely "meh" about it all. So, let's see what SC Alpha 2.0 brings, and I will re-evaluate at that point.
@Mr.Nowak - my comment about promo codes was me poking fun at myself and how I feel sometimes about my investment in SC. Anyone who is happy and positive about SC is more than welcome to be so in my book. Personally, I am jaded, but still hopeful.
Perhaps...as far as visual quality I'm just drawing from my experiences seeing it in games in the 90s...I guess it has gotten better?
But, more generally, I think it would look terrible going from animated characters/NPCs walking around and interacting on the ship to a live action scene on a green screen. It would be off-putting, in my opinion as the live action scenes would just not fit, visually, with the animated characters.
The purpose of the mocap is not only to get scripted scenes to look life-like but to allow those same character models transition to dynamic gameplay.
Last edited:
- Status