Well, regarding the 64-bit thing, look elsewhere in this thread for a lot of mincing around on definitions. Spoiler: "64-Bit custom engine" doesn't have any particular meaning, 64-bit positioning sort of has a meaning, but could be twisted, 64-bit floating point (aka double precision) positioning has a pretty clear meaning and is actually what is. He's still adamant that the positioning is a 32-bit with floating origin, I don't know why, it's a totally reasonable (worked well enough for Elite) way to do things, so CIG would have just said they did that, but because they didn't do that, they said they did the thing they actually did. "It has emerged" apparently. From where I dare not ask.
He creates a false dichotomy between MMOs that instance their areas, and ones that have a single world and you have to create a new character or pay to move between. He literally undermines it with an example of LoD allowing people to move from server to server. Another obvious counterexample is WoW, which has explicit servers you can't move between, but still instances certain areas. I don't know much about the network plans for SC, but he misrepresents the obstacles it would have to overcome to make it look impossible.
Next section: Apparently an engine switch would be ridiculous but for some reason Unreal 4 would be a good move it it weren't so much work to do the port? No explanation given why UE4 would be a great engine for MMOs. Ignore and move on.
He then links to a forum post where someone called Loiosh describes a very sensible way to cut down network stalls, and he shoots it down because "it would break the server loading of assets that require textures". Just unpack that for a moment. Firstly, the idea that you couldn't un-break that by making changes to the server. Secondly, why would the server be loading textures to begin with? Gods' sakes, man, where is it going to draw them? Unless what he's saying here is that the server, receiving a message that says "load this whole ship", would no longer be able to work out not to load textures, which is equally hopeless.
Ok, then we reference CryEngine 4. Which doesn't exist.
He then compares Lumberyard changelog sizes with CryEngine 3 patch notes length, I think to imply that Lumberyard is a much greater set of changes, moments before quoting me, complaining that CE3 patch notes tend not to include all the changes they made. Bravo.
Then we get to some shade-throwing about whether it's actually 50% edited, and wait.. "I can safely say that it’s completely inconceivable that both of these dev teams have made exactly the same revisions (tweaks, fixes, improvements etc) to CE3.x, and to the extent that both engines are comparable to each other." Finally something I can 100% agree with. Besides straightforward typo-type bugs, the changes are almost certainly going to be different. Hell, I'd say that over 95% of devs on this planet would agree with him on that one.
We get back to form quickly though:
"Given the facts of both engines, and the nature of game development in general, there isn’t a single game dev on this planet, who will look at those statements and find anything factual in them."
As usual, Derek presumes to speak for the entire planetary games industry. I'm putting my hand up, here, I'm on this planet, and I think the claim that it took two days is factual. Even if they hand-integrated some key updates, because if you've got the version-control history and you know what you're doing, it just ain't that hard. The best I can make out, he's simultaneously arguing that an engine switch is a massively complex fool's errand, and also that it's a tiny and meaningless change. That it's a failure of open development that all this work wasn't shared with backers, and also that 2.6 doesn't have enough Lumberyard runtime components in it for much work to have been done.
"By all accounts, either they are currently working on the full switch to Lumberyard – which, given the massive undertaking – is going to take the better part of 2017 if you ask me – or this was a publicity stunt in order to use Amazon". False dichotomy, see the buffet analogy.
The next part is the part I like best though. He gives a whole list of features that Lumberyard might provide, including DX12, Vulkan (it's spelled with a K, Derek), and console support. He then says none of those would be possible without throwing out a significant percentage of the work done in the last few years. Here I was like, OK, you're downplaying the benefits of the switch, solid argument. BUT NO! No, the "fact" that it would require a massive deletion of all the stuff that's been done, INCREASES the chance that it's all in aid of a console port: "All of a sudden, those rumors of an inevitable console port aren’t looking so far-fetched now after all, are they?" Seriously. This is S-Grade trolling, I never saw it coming, I gotta tip my fancy hat to him for that one.
Edit: I totally get that there are reasons for people, and people in this thread, to dislike CIG or Star Citizen. Most are touchy territory that I don't touch. But fictitious technical problems shouldn't be among them.
