The Star Citizen Thread v 4

[idkmybffjill]

That's not a contradiction. At all. He said that the assets are good. 'Nothing - except for'... eesh. Sorry but that was a bad argument. Just... bad.

A point - but mo-capped a-list actors isn't really a cutting edge feature - just an expensive one. Which to be fair is something that would push a budget out to the 100mil range. Not really something that's a good defense of CIG's spending though. And it is a feature we haven't seen outside of a few small sneak peaks.

My lord in heaven do I really need to bust out the definition for "nothing"? Apparently your grasp on the english language is just bad if you can't see what a blatant contradiction that is. Nothing means nothing. Not a single thing. No exceptions. And then, oh what's that? An exception? Gee, guess that kinda means the word "nothing" no longer applies. I can't believe I have to break this down for you...

And the level that the actors are being mo-capped at is cutting edge. So much so that the very same technique has become a selling point for a PS4 exclusive that's currently in development. That game got a lot of attention for that one aspect alone because it's cutting edge technology, and setting a new standard for AAA narration.

It's also a reasonable defense for CIG's spending seeing as how that was a promise from the original kickstarter they're clearly fulfilling. I don't see how that's bad.

 

[Electrofreak]

What a lame excuse, you claim that the majority voted for this to happen, I say no they didn't, only a small fraction of the active forum members did.
Did they send out a voting note via email? did they give people any chance to chip in with their opinions?
No, no no no no.

And back to your US voting bias, there the campaigns run for a long time before you even are allowed to vote. Here it was a blitz vote system.

Just took a quick visit to my email box, clicked on one of the 194 emails I've received from Roberts Space Industries:

Clicking that link: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13382-Letter-From-The-Chairman-28-Million

And behold, there's a poll at the bottom of it. At that stage, most announcements of stretch-goals being met were accompanied by a poll as to what the next stretch goal should be.

It's funny, first you guys were saying CIG didn't allow backers any say in stretch goals. Now folks are saying not enough backers got to vote.

At this point, I've provided the facts, and you've all fallen back on opinion.

 

[DisturbedJim]

Only 20k backers voted, that is really not an even close representative for the entire community at that time.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13266-Letter-From-The-Chairman-19-Million

Lets see you try to use that argument in a national election "But puuuleeeease less than 50% of the electorate voted you have no right to form a government" I'll grab some popcorn and a chair while people laugh and throw rotten vegetables at you should be a entertaining use of 20 minutes of my free time

 

[1500]

Just took a quick visit to my email box, clicked on one of the 194 emails I've received from Roberts Space Industries:

http://i.imgur.com/NAFN7Lr.png

Clicking that link: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13382-Letter-From-The-Chairman-28-Million

And behold, there's a poll at the bottom of it. At that stage, most announcements of stretch-goals being met were accompanied by a poll as to what the next stretch goal should be.

It's funny, first you guys were saying CIG didn't allow backers any say in stretch goals. Now folks are saying not enough backers got to vote.

At this point, I've provided the facts, and you've all fallen back on opinion.

Nope, funny enough no one said people didn't have a say in stretch goals, that's was just you trying misdirection in order to ignore the actual statement. You should go back and reread what was actually said and start over. Then provide facts that have any relevance to what was said, not what you changed it to,.

What people stated was that the Players didn't have a say in SC's expanding scope and feature creep, feature creep that would delay the game and push everything back. Stretch goals were presented as expanding the game after release, or features that they already wanted to do but would have waited until after release, but don't worry they would not effect the launch of the game. hahaha

 

[Rilzi]

My lord in heaven do I really need to bust out the definition for "nothing"? Apparently your grasp on the english language is just bad if you can't see what a blatant contradiction that is. Nothing means nothing. Not a single thing. No exceptions. And then, oh what's that? An exception? Gee, guess that kinda means the word "nothing" no longer applies. I can't believe I have to break this down for you...

... I really don't know how I can explain any clearer so for the sake of both of our sanities I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And the level that the actors are being mo-capped at is cutting edge. So much so that the very same technique has become a selling point for a PS4 exclusive that's currently in development. That game got a lot of attention for that one aspect alone because it's cutting edge technology, and setting a new standard for AAA narration.

It's also a reasonable defense for CIG's spending seeing as how that was a promise from the original kickstarter they're clearly fulfilling. I don't see how that's bad.

This is moving into a different argument of whether it's worth the spending - I remember CR talking about how the mo-capping would surpass Ryse: Son of Rome - a game that was notable for being very pretty and also a terrible game. Not a comparison I would have used.

 

[Electrofreak]

Well welcome to the forum 1 day old account. Hope you like ED.

I do, I have about 500 hours into ED currently. Currently fitting up an Asp Explorer for an exploration run.

Got to love CR's statement that they have FPS already working, yet its the most broken aspect of the project, years later. Makes you wonder if he has any clue at all about game development.

I'm curious what you think is broken about it? It's not release-ready, but it's quite enjoyable. It can suffer some desync related to some of the current netcode issues on the PU, but that's a seperate problem.

Nope, funny enough no one said people didn't have a say in stretch goals, that's was just you trying misdirection in order to ignore the actual statement. You should go back and reread what was actually said and start over. Then provide facts that have any relevance to what was said, not what you changed it to,.

What people stated was that the Players didn't have a say in SC's expanding scope and feature creep, feature creep that would delay the game and push everything back. Stretch goals were presented as expanding the game after release, or features that they already wanted to do but would have waited until after release, but don't worry they would not effect the launch of the game. hahaha

If in fact you do go back and look back, I provided the example poll in response to swfanatic717's request:

I wasn't aware of that (only started following when Alpha slots were available). Can you send me a link to the vote and the published results thereof? They would be useful as proof that this direction change was actually demanded by the community as well as the ratio of people for and against the change.

and his subsequent response:

Huh, never seen that before so that's certainly eye-opening, thanks.


2 comments off the top of my head:


1) The votes add up to 237% so I assume the poll allowed selection of more than one option per voter? The top comment by Manoekin says "Maximum number of choices allowed: 1" so I'm a bit confused as to which the case was.


2) None of those are majority votes, why did they then proceed with basically all of the things in the list?

You barged in on the exchange, accused me of being Max, and now you're trying to make like I was answering your argument.

CIG did send out emails that linked to polls. Whether or not those polls were open for long enough or contained the right options is up for debate. I know of at least one poll that asked the community as to whether or not they wanted to continue to have stretchgoals.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

Only 20k backers voted, that is really not an even close representative for the entire community at that time.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13266-Letter-From-The-Chairman-19-Million

Hmmmm....Except if only all of them are "whales"....."WHALES!!!!".....

 

[ghcannon]

Woah. You just completely contradicted yourself. You say NOTHING they've put out has the hallmarks of a $100mill game, and then you say EXCEPT the assets. So then that IS something, and the game is being built to that level of detail. Not tomention the a-list actors being mo-capped directly in-game on a level seen in only the cutting edge of AAA games.

So uh... you wanna rethink your point?

You know .. if they instead of those top-notch 3D assets had a world-class implementation of a server-managed physics graph/instance managers - I'd say that really is something. But I don't think that's the case.

I want to see a house being built, much like Frontier has done. Instead basic features seem to be in infant stages still.
And that's actually worrisome, since a lot of those basic mechanics are supposed to be the backbone of SQ42.

So if SC just got a first version of an item system, it's save to assume that so did SQ42. Which is weird, because I'd expect items to carry a significant gameplay role.

 

[1500]

If in fact you do go back and look back, I provided the example poll in response to swfanatic717's request:



and his subsequent response:





You barged in on the exchange, accused me of being Max, and now you're trying to make like I was answering your argument.

I am just pointing out the misinformation in your posts. CIG's own history and past actions, including statements, was what was being discussed. If you have a problem with quoting the CEO of the company and people believing what he said, well...


Oddly I am not "trying to make like I was answering your argument", you seemed to have forgotten that you have responded to other people, as well as to me. Another attempt at misdirection? I have joined the discussion already in hand, providing quotes to statements made by CIG, and discussing actual facts.

Its too bad that CIG history is so poor that its better to just ignore it, or it will harm CIG's current narrative. Its also telling when a company actively attempts to change their own history to hid their flipflops and the times they go back on their word.

 

[VidarSnipes]

You know what, I'm not sure if this thread should stay open. At least MaxLexandre gave us sone SC news, posted in other parts of the forum and was, or at least pretended to, be interested in ED and had some posts pertaining to, you know, the game these forums are dedicated to. Now we have few evangelists who came here solely to argue with Smart's assertions. Anyway, does anyone knows if the funding graphs counts store credit? Buccaneer's sale figures are quite impressive if you count in the fact that a) it's a small fighter, competing with Sabre, Hornet, Gladius and few others, b)there's 10$ discount for owners of Cutlass Black, which it is supposed to replace (because Cutlass is so unflyable), so the swap is only about 20$.

 

[tooterfish]

My lord in heaven do I really need to bust out the definition for "nothing"? Apparently your grasp on the english language is just bad if you can't see what a blatant contradiction that is. Nothing means nothing. Not a single thing. No exceptions. And then, oh what's that? An exception? Gee, guess that kinda means the word "nothing" no longer applies. I can't believe I have to break this down for you...

Apparently your grasp of the English language is so bad that you've never seen or heard the phrase "nothing except" before?

I mean, you're actually serious about taking this argument further? You know it's making you like you've got social cognition problems right?

 

[1500]

You know what, I'm not sure if this thread should stay open. At least MaxLexandre gave us sone SC news, posted in other parts of the forum and was, or at least pretended to, be interested in ED and had some posts pertaining to, you know, the game these forums are dedicated to. Now we have few evangelists who came here solely to argue with Smart's assertions. Anyway, does anyone knows if the funding graphs counts store credit? Buccaneer's sale figures are quite impressive if you count in the fact that a) it's a small fighter, competing with Sabre, Hornet, Gladius and few others, b)there's 10$ discount for owners of Cutlass Black, which it is supposed to replace (because Cutlass is so unflyable), so the swap is only about 20$.

Actually Max didn't really post in other sections of the forum, I think he had like 2 in other games sections, and none in ED.

It is really unknown what the funding graph shows or what it counts, or even if its true. We know it counts physical goods, and that it counts the full sale of physical goods (even if CIG does not make any money on it). There are also some odd spikes that happen on that graph as well. Anyway, yes according to the graph the sale is going ok, I think its the worse one yet though. But then again, like you said, its a small fighter in a game filled with small fighters, I would hardly expect it to sell well.

If you really want to be cynical, you could point out the fact that CIG could have just fixed the Cutlass and turned it into the ship they promised the buyers, instead of creating a new ship and charging people for it. Seems like creating a crappy ship and then making a better ship to replace it, then selling said ship, makes CIG money. That is not a good direction to see in a company go, or an action you want to see in a company. Makes the company seem like they only care about making new money instead of providing the products that have already been purchased.

 

[Electrofreak]

I am just pointing out the misinformation in your posts. CIG's own history and past actions, including statements, was what was being discussed. If you have a problem with quoting the CEO of the company and people believing what he said, well...


Oddly I am not "trying to make like I was answering your argument", you seemed to have forgotten that you have responded to other people, as well as to me. Another attempt at misdirection? I have joined the discussion already in hand, providing quotes to statements made by CIG, and discussing actual facts.

Its too bad that CIG history is so poor that its better to just ignore it, or it will harm CIG's current narrative. Its also telling when a company actively attempts to change their own history to hid their flipflops and the times they go back on their word.

Look, I'll admit to being a little confused as to whom is claiming what. I'm not attempting to misdirect anything. I'm not here to thump the Star Citizen bible either. I'm just trying to address misinformation that turns a legitimate discussion into a hate circle-jerk.

I don't think CIG is attempting to change or hide any of their history. It's not like they've gone and removed anything from the website; it's all there if you go far enough back enough. Is it terribly easy to do? No.

Hindsight is 20/20. Can we both agree that there are things CIG could have done better? Undoubtedly. But I'd like to see some evidence to support your claim that they're being revisionist.

If you really want to be cynical, you could point out the fact that CIG could have just fixed the Cutlass and turned it into the ship they promised the buyers, instead of creating a new ship and charging people for it. Seems like creating a crappy ship and then making a better ship to replace it, then selling said ship, makes CIG money. That is not a good direction to see in a company go, or an action you want to see in a company. Makes the company seem like they only care about making new money instead of providing the products that have already been purchased.

See, the problem is that there were divided camps on what the Cutlass was supposed to be. Some believed it was supposed to be a space-superiority craft almost on-par with the Hornet, but just less durable and with more cargo space. Others believed it was supposed to be fast, nimble, and light on firepower with enough cargo space to make off with the spoils (arguably this is closer to what it was initially sold as). CIG didn't help themselves by basically issuing statements that conflicted on that front. Obviously the design goals of the craft were shifting as the craft was designed; there were some balance concessions that needed to be made, and they moved towards the more traditional "slower, but dangerous" design.

Should they have designed and sold a new ship? Not really sure about that either. I mean, now "pirate" players have more variety in ship choices by the in-game ship manufacturer that supposedly caters to their needs. On the other hand, I really wish they had instead split the Cutlass into two variations. There were some very vocal, very opposed camps within the community that had very different ideas about what the Cutlass should be. CIG would have made a lot of people angry if they'd decided to ignore one of those camps and simply change the role of the ship.

So do I agree entirely with the decision? No, but I do see why it was made. I should also point out that CIG has allowed Cutlass Black owners to effectively trade their ship even-Steven for the new Buccaneer fighter, offering a Hornet space-superiority loaner until the ship is flyable.

 

[Monk]

I don't think there is any unscrupulous intent from CIG or CR. However, I do think there are significant leadership and project management issues. Of which, I think we've seen some improvement on that but I won't be convinced of much until I see something that looks like a near finished game. Too little information right now for me to make a judgement.

 

[FerinexuS]

Greatings and salutations commandos.

r/dereksmart brought me here and having just skimmed trough some pages it is clear that what we have here is another clear and, actually severe, case of the Tall Poppy Syndrom.

I recommend everyone to listen to video bellow very carefully and truly examine your conscience.

[h=3][video=youtube;qUddm0S3LRI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUddm0S3LRI[/video][/h]

 

[Tuub t Tute]

I hope that no matter what the strength of feelings round here, we can all work to try and keep the thread open. We don't all like what each other are posting and sometimes get into semantics arm-wrestling.

Try to play the ball, not the man so we can continue with the japery and shenanigans!

With NMS (the oft vaunted "other ED competing juggernaut") being delayed until early August, perhaps this might allow SC a little more of a cushion to get on with SQ42 and get it out by Xmas this year?

From an Outsider (no financial interest) perspective, SC feels like one of those sled pull weights round CiG's neck... the further down the track they get, the heavier it is weighing on them.
Maybe an explicit "look we are putting any further iterations of PTU (2.4j ->) on hold now until we get SQ42 out the door would help. My perception of the problem with that though, is it kills off their revenue stream (even though they don't need any more cash).

 

[1500]

Look, I'll admit to being a little confused as to whom is claiming what. I'm not attempting to misdirect anything. I'm not here to thump the Star Citizen bible either. I'm just trying to address misinformation that turns a legitimate discussion into a hate circle-jerk.

I don't think CIG is attempting to change or hide any of their history. It's not like they've gone and removed anything from the website; it's all there if you go far enough back enough. Is it terribly easy to do? No.

Hindsight is 20/20. Can we both agree that there are things CIG could have done better? Undoubtedly. But I'd like to see some evidence to support your claim that they're being revisionist.



See, the problem is that there were divided camps on what the Cutlass was supposed to be. Some believed it was supposed to be a space-superiority craft on-par with the Hornet, but just less maneuverable and with more cargo space. Others believed it was supposed to be fast, nimble, and light on firepower (arguably this is closer to what it was initially sold as). CIG didn't help themselves by basically issuing statements that conflicted on that front. Obviously the design goals of the craft were shifting as the craft was designed; there were some balance concessions that needed to be made, and they moved towards the more traditional "slower, but dangerous" design.

Should they have designed and sold a new ship? Not really sure about that either. I mean, now "pirate" players have more variety in ship choices by the in-game ship manufacturer that supposedly caters to their needs. On the other hand, I really wish they had instead split the Cutlass into two variations. There were some very vocal, very opposed camps within the community that had very different ideas about what the Cutlass should be. CIG would have made a lot of people angry if they'd decided to ignore one of those camps and simply change the role of the ship.

So do I agree entirely with the decision? No, but I do see why it was made. I should also point out that CIG has allowed Cutlass Black owners to effectively trade their ship even-Steven for the new Buccaneer fighter.

Actually CIG have removed stuff from their website, and removed things on youtube. They have removed spesific video's, along with other content, references to Sandi placing donots in front of diating co-workers, as well as other content. They have also gone back and removed all reference to two seatgate from past materials. CR has also gone on record stating that things they did, didn't happen, like hyping SM and such, stretch goals and scope creep.

 

[el_tel]

You know what, I'm not sure if this thread should stay open. At least MaxLexandre gave us sone SC news, posted in other parts of the forum and was, or at least pretended to, be interested in ED and had some posts pertaining to, you know, the game these forums are dedicated to. Now we have few evangelists who came here solely to argue with Smart's assertions. Anyway, does anyone knows if the funding graphs counts store credit? Buccaneer's sale figures are quite impressive if you count in the fact that a) it's a small fighter, competing with Sabre, Hornet, Gladius and few others, b)there's 10$ discount for owners of Cutlass Black, which it is supposed to replace (because Cutlass is so unflyable), so the swap is only about 20$.

I agree. I doubt FD want their own forums to become yet another battleground between those that are pro/anti Star Citizen. Why is it only this particular game that causes the thread to descend into argumentative chaos so regularly? Look at the other games in the Off Topic section. Limit Theory, No Man's Sky, Everspace... the discussions there manage to remain relatively civil.

If the arguments are because there is little game-related stuff to talk about, causing the debate to inevitably gravitate to how the money's being spent, who's left, who's a shill etc, then maybe it would be better if this thread is locked by default, and only opened when there's a new point release (2.4 - 2.5 for example). I'm sure that even then it will descend into personal attacks again and subsequently get locked, but at least it stands a chance of actually discussing the game most of the time.

IMO, if a battleground is wanted, stick to posting on Reddit.

 

[FerinexuS]

Coming from r/dereksmart it seems this thread is very polarized, or almost, everyone here pro-SC is MaxShill and everyone against SC is Derek disciple.
All the ingredients for a popcorn fest.
Count me in!

 

[Backer42]

Only 20k backers voted, that is really not an even close representative for the entire community at that time.

Not backers, forum accounts. Everyone could make them and "vote" for scope creep, back then a game package wasn't even required for posting. That is how they accumulated over a million "citizens".

Despite this, every single original backer not participating in those random forum shenanigans is entitled to the originally promised product unless contacted personally by CIG to acknowledge and sign off a changed plan (like "minimum viable product"). This is how real world business works.