The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Along with it turning up on the BBC NEWS website(!), Polygon, The Metro Newspaper website, Kotaku, etc.

Meanwhile, in a darkened room in the depths of CIG HQ, the Lord Roberts is ranting to his latest "underling of the month" who drew the short straw for the weekly "motivational dressing down", demanding to know just how and WHY that "hack David Braben's clearly inferior space game is getting so much coverage right off the bat in 2017, while Star Citizen's lukewarm (and that's being very generous here) "release" of 2.6 barely raised a whisper in the media? (Outside of a bunch of folks pointing and laughing that is)
 
Last edited:
Can you, or anyone else, point me to the links that confirm CIG has taken loans?

No confirmation is required.

All one needs to do is state that CIG has taken a loan, and use the fact that CIG hasn't discussed loans as proof that such loans have been acquired.

/s
 
Last edited:
One more time :

If you do not need a loan, you do not take one. (From the book of: How not to mismanage your company into the ground 101 for dummies)

You do not ever generate a company debt for no reason or need, that is insane and lunacy, it would be like taking out a mortgage on a fully paid for home just because you want your current everyday account balance to look higher for giggles.

CIG did not need a loan, they knew this way back at KS stage. If they took a loan or were assuming an intention to do as such at or around $100million, then that's a huge problem as it would indicate their outgoings planned or otherwise are larger than their income by a substantial amount, or they are just greedy sobs, neither is good for anyone.

Sigh and I repeat for you again.

Future Knowledge.
What your Doing is a Fallacy of Perception.

You are making the Decision to take a Lone based on your Knowledge that they got 140 Million.
But back when this Decision was Made they did not know that they would have 140 Million.
They had 30 Million and needed 40 Million.

This is the Situation you have.
You got 30 Million Funding.
You need 40 Million for your Budget.

YOU DO NOT KNOW. That next Year you are going to have 70 Million already.
They dont have a Crystal Ball telling them.
Oh hey you dont actually need any Extra Loans. The Crowdfunding will Overshoot all your Stretch Goals so far that you will have more than Enough Money without taking a Loan.

They had to make this Decision back then to Contract the Companies and get things going.
Is that really so hard to Understand ???????

I must admit I have not been able to read all the latest posts but this just surprised me.

Can you, or anyone else, point me to the links that confirm CIG has taken loans? That would go completely against the initial statements (and current in its website) that SC is 100% backer funded and also against Chris Roberts statements that even if the game was to stop funding there are enough reserves to complete it as promised. Never mind that the game now has more than double the funding required at the end of stretch goals (assuming the pledge counter is correct).

Apparently someone said this in an Interview.
I dont know about this either. But unlike certain other People. I wont ask for Evidence for any Statement made.


The problem though is outgroup homogeneity bias. Sneaks up on you, that, leads to misdirected snideness or worse.

Woah Holy Hell Mate.
I just came home from Work and I am about to go to Bed.
Would you pls not post me Science stuff like that riddled with expert chinese xD
 
Not quite correct, here some examples: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-compan...ts-when-they-have-enough-reserves-to-pay-them

But, having said that, CIG does not need to show a healthy balance sheet to anyone, or a balance sheet of any kind for that matter, and according to own statements it has several times over what it needs for completion. If the cash reserve is as healthy as CIG claims it would not need to borrow to invest/save in a more attractive financial product plus I dont think CIG is planning to become a private banking entity borrowing here to invest there, and it would not need to borrow to have a cash reserve for calamity scenarios, since it has already got it.

So the only main reasons I would see CIG would be interested in loans would be either some kind of attractive tax relief based on debt. Or and actual lack of a healthy cash reserve to progress the project. Or both.

The thing with that though, is ideally you would have a completed production line churning out products/produce and be guarenteed (as best as one can be at least) an income for well beyond the duration of the loan and be making enough money to barely bat an eyelid at the outstanding amount or it's accumilated interest.

CIG have no product and have already sold most of their potential product in pre-orders, unless you count mouse pads and their clothing lines (seriously lol). So they have no guarenteed income thus defaulting to "do not need, do not take" is prudent, at $100m the company had bloated in manpower size and had facilities everywhere, there would be no further need to develop these things.

I personally would only begrudgingly take a loan to expand operations or otherwise further develop a business with a view that it would be an investment back into the company (and I'd only ever do that if I did not have the funds to cover it outright), CIG has no need nor reason for such a facility. I feel that a clearer picture would be possible if CIG were as 'open' about their outgoings as they are with their income, but lol.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
The thing with that though, is ideally you would have a completed production line churning out products/produce and be guarenteed (as best as one can be at least) an income for well beyond the duration of the loan and be making enough money to barely bat an eyelid at the outstanding amount or it's accumilated interest.

CIG have no product and have already sold most of their potential product in pre-orders, unless you count mouse pads and their clothing lines (seriously lol). So they have no guarenteed income thus defaulting to "do not need, do not take" is prudent, at $100m the company had bloated in manpower size and had facilities everywhere, there would be no further need to develop these things.

I personally would only begrudgingly take a loan to expand operations or otherwise further develop a business with a view that it would be an investment back into the company (and I'd only ever do that if I did not have the funds to cover it outright), CIG has no need nor reason for such a facility. I feel that a clearer picture would be possible if CIG were as 'open' about their outgoings as they are with their income, but lol.

Oh, fully agree. The only reason a bank would give a loan to CIG I think it is if somehow the bank saw pledges as an actual & sustainable real product revenue. But unfinished and pre sold product revenues usually represent a liability in the balance sheet, not the other way around. In case of chapter 11's though, my understanding is creditors are first in line...
 
Last edited:
Sigh and I repeat for you again.

Future Knowledge.
What your Doing is a Fallacy of Perception.

You are making the Decision to take a Lone based on your Knowledge that they got 140 Million.
But back when this Decision was Made they did not know that they would have 140 Million.
They had 30 Million and needed 40 Million.

This is the Situation you have.
You got 30 Million Funding.
You need 40 Million for your Budget.

No dude, I was warning of this stuff at the end of KS, no future knowledge needed back then the same as now. It wasn't difficult to see them making a lot of cash at the start. In fact the staggering flow of income was thrown in peoples faces at every oppurtunity by press and KS.

The game was "Fully funded" at $62m or thereabouts wasn't it? So to hear hints of loans being sought after $100m is what troubles most, if true then they massively underestimated the required budget or have been doing bad things or combination.

$38m+ beyond their own 'best case/we can do it all' estimate and looking for a loan is a disaster, the reason budgets exist are to control spending and drive progress economically. As soon as you use 'blank cheque' mindsets the company is lost and eventually through the process of debt ceases to be a "going concern".

I was there in 2012, I kickstarted it like many others, and had vocalised doubts about the managements ability to reign in the historic overspending habits that nearly put an end to Freelancer, I figured that this time, without a publisher to fall back on and a bad rep with them anyway, that a certain person would grow up a bit and be professional without trying to be a rockstar at the same time. I was wrong and now we are right back with Freelancer syndrome, half say everything is fine and the other half are waiting for the meme material to flow. The only things I forgot to factor in were his inexperience at completing a modern project and his absence from the industry (at the time I had no idea he wasn't still a dev), had I done so I would not have backed and would rather have waited for product release before buying.

You learn by experience, not by hope.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, fully agree. The only reason a bank would give a loan to CIG I think it is if somehow the bank saw pledges as an actual & sustainable real product revenue. But unfinished and pre sold product revenues usually represent a liability in the balance sheet, not the other way around. In case of chapter 11's though, my understanding is creditors are first in line...

I'm going to have to start pestering my accountant hehe :D

Creditors are first in line yes, of that I am 100% positive :)
 
Last edited:
I can lend something to this, from a bank or lenders point of view a company with a constant income revenue will be a more attractive prospect if said company requires a loan, a lot of lenders will not lend at all to companies with no capital flowing inwards and if they do then there is usually a very high rate of interest on repayments. If CIG over it's operational lifetime can show a good flow of money into the company without an equal or larger amount flowing outwards then they would be in a normal (bank/lender assumes safe) position to borrow.

I'm positive the constant sales were for the double whammy of:
1. More 'no strings' money straight into the company.
2. Better company credit rating due to low risk (From the mathematically minded lenders point of view anyway) and the ability to call upon external funding if they ran into problems.


Appreciate the input...I figured Ben's response had truth to it...I think it was the most honest thing when it came to this sort of talk from CIG.

Even if that was the excuse CR probably should have used money for a "rainy day" instead of blowing the concept up to this scale.

It wasn't dishonourable at the time, but it was irresponsible.

Happy to be wrong on this when the game launches as advertised...but it's not looking fantastically optimistic from a tech debt standpoint coupled with the ever changing narrative.

To be perfectly blunt I would have appreciated authenticity despite even if it brought about delays. What I can't stand is narrative shifts that change with the wind. (The being massive blockers or problems cig can't seem to get out of).
 
Last edited:
Appreciate the input...I figured Ben's response had truth to it...I think it was the most honest thing when it came to this sort of talk from CIG.

Even if that was the excuse CR probably should have used money for a "rainy day" instead of blowing the concept up to this scale.

It wasn't dishonourable at the time, but it was irresponsible.

Happy to be wrong on this when the game launches as advertised...but it's not looking fantastically optimistic from a tech debt standpoint coupled with the ever changing narrative.

To be perfectly blunt I would have appreciated authenticity despite even if it brought about delays. What I can't stand is narrative shifts that change with the wind. (The being massive blockers or problems cig can't seem to get out of).

That's the thing, mix a little irresponsibility with a shifting narrative and a penchant for secrecy and the result is something very bad and very costly.

I look at the mountain of work (features) and it just boggles the mind at what they have left to do, I'm glad I don't work there as the stress and pressure must be unreal.
 
No dude, I was warning of this stuff at the end of KS, no future knowledge needed back then the same as now. It wasn't difficult to see them making a lot of cash at the start. In fact the staggering flow of income was thrown in peoples faces at every oppurtunity by press and KS.

The game was "Fully funded" at $62m or thereabouts wasn't it? So to hear hints of loans being sought after $100m is what troubles most, if true then they massively underestimated the required budget or have been doing bad things or combination.

$38m+ beyond their own 'best case/we can do it all' estimate and looking for a loan is a disaster, the reason budgets exist are to control spending and drive progress economically. As soon as you use 'blank cheque' mindsets the company is lost and eventually through the process of debt ceases to be a "going concern".

I was there in 2012, I kickstarted it like many others, and had vocalised doubts about the managements ability to reign in the historic overspending habits that nearly put an end to Freelancer, I figured that this time, without a publisher to fall back on and a bad rep with them anyway, that a certain person would grow up a bit and be professional without trying to be a rockstar at the same time. I was wrong and now we are right back with Freelancer syndrome, half say everything is fine and the other half are waiting for the meme material to flow. The only things I forgot to factor in were his inexperience at completing a modern project and his absence from the industry (at the time I had no idea he wasn't still a dev), had I done so I would not have backed and would rather have waited for product release before buying.

You learn by experience, not by hope.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm going to have to start pestering my accountant hehe :D

Creditors are first in line yes, of that I am 100% positive :)


Sigh.
Given the Scale and the Promises. I have to tell you Honestly. This Project is clearly not Fully Funded with 62 Million.
Even if we Assume an Company with Experience on it which is not the Case I would put it at around 80-90 Million to be Honest.


And the rest of your Post sounds more like you got some Personal Vendetta against Roberts lol.
Just now I have a Tremendous Feeling that you wanted this to Become the SQ42 Single Player Game and never wanted all of that Online MMO stuff.
From the Sound of your Post it sounds less like your actually caring at all about the Loan but about something they decided that you dont want.


No Offense.
But you can Warn about anything.

The Fact is that this is how things often Work.
Most Big Companies constantly have Tons of Loans around for different Projects regardless of them being possible to Fund from existing Money or not.
 
I cant read him.
I got a long ignore list so I actually didnt notice that dog pile effect as you call it xD


And no.
Actually its not.
No offense but the Original SQ42 as they planned it. Was never a 500k Project either.
500k was a Community raised Funding.
On that you can assume 10-100k Company Assets and 1-2 Million of Sponsors or Loans.

This is completely normal.

I dislike using Elite Dangerous as the example as it tends to move the discussion away.
But its a good example for this.

Frontier Raised 1.7 Million from Crowd Funding.
But the actual Budget was well over 8 Million.
The Sales later are estimated to have Created 22 Million by the way (which is one reason why I have high hopes for Frontier to increase the Scale of the Game so this Giant World gets filled with more content ;) )



Alot of the Money SC got came trickling over time.
Its likely they stopped taking Loans Years ago. Because the Funding created sufficient Money alone.
But that does not change that they still got the earlier Loans Running.



Seriously guys.
This is pretty normal.
Or dont you think that by now tons of Experts would have all jumped at it that CIG has Loans despite so much funding ;)
The reason that you dont see tons of news Articles on CIGs Loans. (Unlike on pretty much all other issues which come into the news all nose long) is because this is in fact an entirely normal thing.


Star Citizen is a Unicum on Crowdfunding.
Nobody in Hell could Expect this to Skyrocket like that.
So them taking Loans in the early Funding phases. Is in one word *Normal*


Greetz

CR and SG both publically aonowleged they were 100% crowd funded...Sandi took credit for it. Not sure when you jumped on the SC bandwagon but that's pretty common knowledge unless you are implying they lied.
 
That's the thing, mix a little irresponsibility with a shifting narrative and a penchant for secrecy and the result is something very bad and very costly.

I look at the mountain of work (features) and it just boggles the mind at what they have left to do, I'm glad I don't work there as the stress and pressure must be unreal.

Agreed.

- - - Updated - - -

Sigh.
Given the Scale and the Promises. I have to tell you Honestly. This Project is clearly not Fully Funded with 62 Million.
Even if we Assume an Company with Experience on it which is not the Case I would put it at around 80-90 Million to be Honest.


And the rest of your Post sounds more like you got some Personal Vendetta against Roberts lol.
Just now I have a Tremendous Feeling that you wanted this to Become the SQ42 Single Player Game and never wanted all of that Online MMO stuff.
From the Sound of your Post it sounds less like your actually caring at all about the Loan but about something they decided that you dont want.


No Offense.
But you can Warn about anything.

The Fact is that this is how things often Work.
Most Big Companies constantly have Tons of Loans around for different Projects regardless of them being possible to Fund from existing Money or not.

The project isn't fully funded yet when 62 million hit it was according to CR. assuming he understood the costs of everything before the were completed.

That narrative changed and apparently so did the meaning of being 100% backer funded.
 
Sigh.
Given the Scale and the Promises. I have to tell you Honestly. This Project is clearly not Fully Funded with 62 Million.
Even if we Assume an Company with Experience on it which is not the Case I would put it at around 80-90 Million to be Honest.


And the rest of your Post sounds more like you got some Personal Vendetta against Roberts lol.
Just now I have a Tremendous Feeling that you wanted this to Become the SQ42 Single Player Game and never wanted all of that Online MMO stuff.
From the Sound of your Post it sounds less like your actually caring at all about the Loan but about something they decided that you dont want.


No Offense.
But you can Warn about anything.

The Fact is that this is how things often Work.
Most Big Companies constantly have Tons of Loans around for different Projects regardless of them being possible to Fund from existing Money or not.

That first line, thats hindsight. :)

Funny you should say 80-90 million, when I was disputing things way back when the full list of stretch goals were known I said $80m would be the absolute best case scenario and would likely ensure complete development of all features and maybe some left over to expand once they had a really sweet game out on shelves. Those were actually quite good times when I look back at it. :)

I've no personal vendetta against Crobblers, if I bumped into him in a bar I'd probably buy him a drink and have a chat, I'd grill him relentlessly of course but I would be fair and I would listen to his explanations. I thought S42 would be cool, and there was a lack of single player space games similar to the old WC/Tie Fighter/Epic games at the time, but the MMO was what kept me watching it closer than I perhaps would have otherwise.

I do go off on tangents and mix subject targets when reeling off forum words though, the loan rumours do bother me greatly. The reason for my annoyance at them will shock many SC fans and non goons, it is I want them to make the game, I want to play it someday along with everyone else and not just so I can do what I normally do in the PU and go round crashing my ship into peoples faces while laughing loudly or finding ways to steal everyones stuff to harvest the tears. I genuinely want to see it completed and playable but the company building it seems to make a habit of letting everyone down, being economical with the truth and worst of all in my eyes, taking other peoples hard earned money for granted while asking for more.

I've learned from experience that when something is hyped or promoted with little to back it up, there's problems, and when something is drowned in nothing but hype, it's almost guarenteed to be dishonest in some way. I'll happily nod my head and say "well done" when they produce something that warrants it, but so far the only time I've done that was with the 2.0 release. Instead of giving them props for their bold claims, their plans or their advertising, give them props for finishing something, for giving you the product, not bits of broken prototypes.

Remember, I am in the same group as all the other backers, the only difference is some of them choose to ignore and even gloss over things that are potential issues, whereas I will pursue and question things and sometimes, it doesn't rub well with others :)
 
The problem though is outgroup homogeneity bias. Sneaks up on you, that, leads to misdirected snideness or worse.

Hi Ben

Could you elaborate on the point you're trying to make by that comment?

I mean without resorting to some cut out and keep template fallacy thing that people like to bang on about when they can't be arrrrrsssseeddddd to say what they actually mean.

ETA - you know - in your actual own words..

ETA2 - the forum swear filter is a giant PITA

But I guess that's the point of it *pretend smiley face*
 
Last edited:
I don't know what is with the random capitalising of words in your walls of text, but I personally find them unreadable. Could you please change it?

Sunleader, did you pick the habit of using capital-first-letter as emphasis in some early chatroom? That's the only thing I can think of. I can understand it as an in-group / subculture thing, but it really doesn't work on a regular forum like this one.

I know habits are hard to shake, but I think you really should make the effort with this one. It really does make your posts much harder to read (the caps are pretty jarring and wrong), costing you credibility for no gain.
 
From the forums:
Let's Talk About Some Mustangs!
Meohfumado-CIG said:
Hello all out there in the verse!

Back after a rather lengthy hiatus, its your friendly, neighborhood Meohfumado here with another Feedback thread. This time, our focus will be on the Mustang series. So here's your opportunity to be heard, and given recent 2.6 changes, I'm sure there are things you want to get your two cents in on.

So tell me what you think of the ship. Looking for the good, the bad and the ugly.

Keep in mind that feedback is feedback. As in prior threads, being a QA Manager, I have limited insight into when/what changes such feedback may lead to. My work tends to be done once the feedback is gathered and the report collated and sent off, and then I don't hear much until new revisions of ships are ready for testing (which may not be for quite a while). In addition, such feedback may not even affect the ship in question, but may go towards ensuring that any missteps made with existing ships are not repeated in the future with new ships. Nevertheless, good ideas are often incorporated, and as we continue to balance/rebalance/redesign things like ships and weapons, such ideas could very well make it into the game.

So while we encourage everyone to let us know how they feel, please remember that the development team all have their own opinions as well. So please do not take the consensus that may or may not be established in this thread as any sort of marching orders that we at CIG are bound to act upon.

Thank you all for your help, and for taking the time to aid us in making Star Citizen the best game that we can. We truly could not do it without you!

---------

To help me with formatting and collating the feedback, please make General points, and also any points for specific variants kept separate. I also ask that you break it down according to the following categories:

- ART -

This is how the ship looks, its geometry, structure and textures, etc. You don't like the way something "looks" its an art request. You want the insides rearranged, that's an art request, etc.

Note...again, in the interest of full disclosure, I want to temper expectations and inform everybody as far as feedback requests go, this is the hardest to get changed due to the amount of work involved, and the fact that the existing art has already gone through numerous passes and approvals, and whereas some design changes can be made with simple XML adjustments, art changes are a totally different animal. But artists still want to hear that feedback in any case, and good ideas may still get adopted if Devs/Artists get the time and inclination, or if a complete ship rework is on the table.

- DESIGN -

This is how the ship is designed, its intended function (whereas art would be its form). What's your thoughts on its role, its weapon loadouts, shields, coolers, and other components that make the ship what it is. Cargo, shields, modules, upgrades, and any other features that don't require reworking art (such as adding beds/toilets/showers) would all fall under design in this case.

- BALANCE -

This is how the ship relates to other ships in the Verse, and how it currently performs against them. Comparisons are valid and wanted, but try to keep the theory-craft to a minimum as we are still working with moving parts in most regards (the situation is always...fluid). We would prefer comparisons to existing ships, using existing 2.6 data, and not hypotheticals about future ships not yet released. Where do you see the Mustang ultimately fitting in the SC hierarchy of ships, and where do you see it now? How does it fall short? etc. There is some overlap with Design of course, but whereas Design would be more for a "I think the Mustang Delta should be able to swap rocket pods for more guns," Balance would be for "The Mustang has zero chance going up against X ship due to Y when its supposed to be able to counter that ship," and that sort of thing.


Thanks again for taking the time to help out with your feedback. We at CIG appreciate it.

And as always...Keep Flying!!
Source: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/366968
 
From the forums:
Let's Talk About Some Mustangs!

Source: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/366968

My advice: burn it down, scatter the slag/scrap (now I wonder if the former word will be censored) and forget it has ever existed. I dislike many of SC's ship designs, but Mustang is on another level of ugly, with nonsensical entrance, the most stupid thruster placement ever, and it's really, really buggy, too.
 
Last edited:
If they Deliver just 60% of the Features they Promised. I would be more than Happy to Play that Game. And it would be Worth three times what I spend on it ;

Thats a bit of the thing, right there. Generally the problem in these kind of situations is not that 60% of the promised features are dropped, but that the remainder ends up at 60% of the promised quality. Right now there is almost nothing in the Alpha that really works well, from a gameplay perspective. And I am ignoring the bugs, performance issues and glitches because it is an alpha. Show me a flight model that is not just better than before, but actually fun. Show me a gameplay loop that is fun. Imagine what you'd want to do when Star Citizen goes live. Become a trader? Explore the vast unknown? Take on assassination missions against politicians? Mine the local asteroid belts with your mining buddies? There is quite literally none of that yet. And if 3.0 will fix that a bit, and its months if not a year away, what does that mean for the schedule? I mean, I am not talking about tweaking a parameter of a second effect when applying a specific custom mod to a specific weapon. I am talking basic gameplay here.
 
Last edited:
More blatant stealing of other people's posts:

http://eq2wire.com/2017/01/05/closing-the-book-on-everquest-next-and-landmark/

Retrospective on the now-defunct Everquest Landmark and EQ Next:

  1. The fate of EQNext/Landmark was sealed early on by design decisions and (despite having so many years under its belt of abandoned effort) rushed development and being announced before anything concrete had been planned or tested.
  2. Carte blanche was given to a few decision makers based only on a cult of personality, resulting in minimal experienced critical analysis of ongoing work.
  3. Despite promises of an open development process, interaction with customers completely ceased, with each game update being a complete surprise.

  • Trailblazer packs for the then-titled EverQuest Next Landmark were estimated to have made over $10 million and were sold with the obvious connection that it would eventually support development of EverQuest Next.
  • Development on EQNext / Landmark began before the technology had been sufficiently tested. It was not known if the engine/platform could support all the features that were announced on stage at SOE Live. NPC Pathing did not work until December 2014 and requires 6GB of pathing data per island per world.
  • The EverQuest Next “combat demo” shown at SOE Live in 2013 was entirely smoke and mirrors, with developers back at the home office “playing” NPCs.
  • The VoxelFarm engine adopted for Landmark and EverQuest Next was modified in such a way that upstream changes and improvements to VoxelFarm (including major new features like placeable flowing water and fixes for bugs that plague Landmark to this day) could not be integrated.
  • Landmark was only ever intended or built as a Development Kit for creating EverQuest Next geometry. As a result, it was not a “game” and never saw basic features such as Trading items, proper Guilds, or a Broker.
  • It was revealed at the “Tech Evolution” panel at SOE Live in 2014 that this was the fourth rendition of EverQuest Next. The first two had been cancelled as being direct sequels to EQ or EQ2 and “not thinking big enough”. The third was a fixed block size version of the game. The fourth iteration introduced scaling voxels.
  • Feedback from the existing EverQuest and EverQuest II teams was largely ignored. Instead, credence was primarily given to outside feedback from recently laid off 38 Studios staff and other outsiders in the industry. 38 Studios staffers in particular encouraged the exaggerated Disney character style.
  • Georgeson went around the office telling anyone within earshot that EverQuest Next “didn’t need designers” and that “players will make the content for us”. Suffice it to say, this kind of talk was rather demoralizing for other teams within the company that valued storytelling.
  • Sony Online Entertainment took a $62 million writeoff in 2013 for development costs associated with EverQuest Next and H1Z1.
  • When SOE was given access to see exactly what Storybricks was and wasn’t, members of the EQNext team found that it was not a good fit. Rather than immediately changing course to other solutions, or beginning development on traditional storytelling tools for designers to start creating content along the lines of EQ, EQ2, and more modern MMOs, Georgeson “doubled down” on Storybricks as the be-all solution for game content creation and would not waver from that course despite it quickly becoming clear that the software didn’t align with what had been announced.

You could almost do a find-and-replace and have it sound eerily familiar… I've highlighted my favourites. :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom