The Star Citizen Thread v5

[proKar_garlic]

Does anyone know if there's substance to rumours of one of actors leaving the project? I saw a mention or two, but nothing substantial.

Gary Oldman is said to have terminated its contract and so has no appearances in Ep.2. Either he is gona be killed or reformed in some way. Gilliam Anderson is said to be on the run, no way to contact her to shoot the last bit's of dialogue options (that's why it's taking them so long to nail the first 5 chapters, they need the branching dialogues). Possible culprit for the E3 fiasco.

 

[Rolan]

Gary Oldman is said to have terminated its contract and so has no appearances in Ep.2. Either he is gona be killed or reformed in some way. Gilliam Anderson is said to be on the run, no way to contact her to shoot the last bit's of dialogue options (that's why it's taking them so long to nail the first 5 chapters, they need the branching dialogues). Possible culprit for the E3 fiasco.

Any source for that?

 

[dsmart]

House Of The Dying Sun space combat

[video=youtube_share;uTOGv7pPZfI]https://youtu.be/uTOGv7pPZfI[/video]


Elite Dangerous space combat

[video=youtube_share;lwxhmw6EDts]https://youtu.be/lwxhmw6EDts[/video]

Star Citizen space combat

[video=youtube_share;19w8HFKsQn0]https://youtu.be/19w8HFKsQn0[/video]

 

[lysan]

Fly to a planet without SC and everything is seamless and without transitions, it just takes a while

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiAksP7W9SY

Good one, everything in ED is seamless, until infinity and pretty darn good too.

[video=youtube;ab_zGPTs-88]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_zGPTs-88[/video]

 

[Rilzi]

I thought i saw the limit of dodgyness with snowflake-gate, but this whole photoshopped promo? Why? Y u do dis CIG? Im lost for words at the... amateur level stupidity of it.

1. Like 1500 said, why the hell not just ask Sandi to pose for a picture? Im sure they have the equipment, and that she'd be happy to do it - and it would have to be less work than photoshopping her face onto a different image.
2. They've been going on about how much work they've put into making the female avatar - so why not an ingame model to go with the ingame ship?
3. If you must use a stock model photo why not find a stock image thats both a: under a public domain royalty free license and b: not watermarked?

I honestly find this hard to believe because it seems so dumb.

 

[lysan]

I saw that ship promo with the dress.

Spoiler

Now it looks like it was not paid for. Yes someone at CIG nicked it for free. Now when you are making +$100 million USD by selling spaceships or lets say pictures of space ships, you should have the money to pay the artist from where you "borrowed" the art. In any law in any country the company where this was done are responsible. Of course they can, and probably will say that it was done without their knowledge, still this do not give the company a get out of jail card.

It will be interesting to see what this company will claim. I would claim 20% of the revenue of the sold product, claiming that your art has contributed to the sales.
Star Citizen and CIG you should be ashamed of yourself, first the mocking of your backers by labelling them snowflakes then in broad daylight take credit for someone else work. Any professional DEV should stay far far away from companies who apply this kind of business. I know this threads security level has reached DEFCON 3 but this is about the project Star Citizen and how the company who are making it do business.

 

[milligna]

As for the stuff about Mr Smart - come on man, really? The ad hominem is getting old.

It's so silly and besides the point. Anyway, I read someone saying Frontier was set to deliver the BDSSE with Elite Dangerous and Smart replied: "I'm inclined to agree" or somesuch and complimented them. Something tells me it's not in his weird video.

Back to Star Citizen! The drama that feeds itself... brought to you by hubris, incompetence, and good old fashioned showmanship! It's amazing how angry discussing CIG without CIG in control of the conversation makes some people, even if we do crack a few jokes. Most of us DID back the project, after all. We're adults, able to sift through information and come to our own conclusions without being protected by self-appointed guardians of so-called "facts."

I know some of you guys are new to the thread and horrified by the disrespect, but yeah - conversation here tends to go a little deeper than "what kind of ship would you get." That's soooo 2013. If you want to elevate the conversation, by all means try - wallowing in the sewer of silly personal attacks, tho? Not gonna cut it.

 

[Rilzi]

Jim, stop. It's not worth it. They'll ignore your points, claim you're somehow associated with Star Citizen and then back up eachother's claims that they're anything but a hate campaign. Not worth attacking an organized brigade.

What points did he make? Genuinely curious to see what you think he said.

It's easier to just keep the on-topic discussion going, like, what ship would you get, if you could get it?

... and how much would you pay for it?
Bu dum tss!! Heyoooo! Yeah, it was a cheap shot (cheaper than a Star Citizen ship! Okay I'll stop) but come on it was right there!

 

[SpaceFort]

What points did he make? Genuinely curious to see what you think he said.

None that you'll ever really care to see. You'd miss the winning lottery numbers if they had anything to do with his points.

... and how much would you pay for it?
Bu dum tss!! Heyoooo! Yeah, it was a cheap shot (cheaper than a Star Citizen ship! Okay I'll stop) but come on it was right there!

To each their own. I snagged a Hornet Ghost for free, so I'm not really sure what the issue is.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

All I can say is this:
If a company like Frontier Developments wants to be associated with the likes of Derek Smart, good luck with that.
I'll just walk out of here and let you guys continue throwing feces at each other.

Bye...

We cannot discriminate on who is allowed to post here. All are free to as long as they follow the rules. This applies to you as well, discussing another poster is not allowed, discuss the topic, not the people posting.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Another dozen posts deleted.... you guys are keeping us busy. Please, stay on topic, don't discuss other posters.

 

[SkUnimatrix]

LOL... [wacko]
This is just getting better and better.
Btw. that's called plagiarism. You get an F for that.

Actually that's called Copyright Infringement. That's a Tort and you get sued for that. Especially when used in a money making endeavor. Then it just depends on who had the rights to the image. At the very least they'll probably get a Cease & Desist. They maybe the extent of it, but some will see they have $115M and may decide to also have that C&D served with lawsuit papers followed quickly by a call from the plaintiff's attorney on how much they want to "make it go away". Probably somewhere under $50k. Anyone who has been in the legal field knows if you can settle for less than $50k you just do it in most cases even if you are in the right. Unless it's something critical to the business that you have to defend no mater what.

 

[frank n beans]

Does anyone know if there's substance to rumours of one of actors leaving the project? I saw a mention or two, but nothing substantial.

I've never seen any substance. I guess we'll have to wait for CIGs unprecedented transparency to let us know. Or the release of SQ42, in, what, 2017 sometime?

 

[SpaceFort]

Actually that's called Copyright Infringement. That's a Tort and you get sued for that. Especially when used in a money making endeavor. Then it just depends on who had the rights to the image. At the very least they'll probably get a Cease & Desist. They maybe the extent of it, but some will see they have $115M and may decide to also have that C&D served with lawsuit papers followed quickly by a call from the plaintiff's attorney on how much they want to "make it go away". Probably somewhere under $50k. Anyone who has been in the legal field knows if you can settle for less than $50k you just do it in most cases even if you are in the right. Unless it's something critical to the business that you have to defend no mater what.

Fair use, yo. Something about 'bearing likeness' or something. It's legitimate as long as it's clearly modified and not the same picture itself being sold.

 

[Ozram]

Fair use, yo. Something about 'bearing likeness' or something. It's legitimate as long as it's clearly modified and not the same picture itself being sold.

No. The watermark is there precisely because it's not "fair use" yo. It's theft, yo.

 

[SpaceFort]

No. The watermark is there precisely because it's not "fair use" yo. It's theft, yo.

The watermark's there so that you can't redistribute it 'as is'.

 

[SpaceFort]

So according to your definition I can take a picture of Mickey Mouse and make him a different color (making him clearly modified, and not the same picture) and then sell T-shirts of it?

Question: are you a lawyer?

Difference here is that they're not selling the picture, which is why I mentioned "not the same picture itself being sold."

 

[milligna]

Difference here is that they're not selling the picture, which is why I mentioned "not the same picture itself being sold."

Copyright infringement has nothing to do with selling it or not. I really doubt they'd attempt a fair use defense in court, it would be easier just to remove the stolen image and/or pay the company involved along with an apology.

it's not like CIG is Banksy or Negativland, appropriating art to make some devastating satiric point. One of their graphics people just got lazy and stole something online to make their job easier.

Fair use is really difficult to deal with in the US courts, you have precedent for musical parodies being classed as fair use ala Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music... the "Pretty Woman" case. But stuff like this? Nah, it's too expensive and painful to deal with. If the owner wants to make a stink, CIG will cough up some money and shut up.

Really lousy form, tho. They could've bought the image for a few bucks. Our backer dollars at work, I guess! Save money on jpgs, spend more on stupid looking furniture.

 

[Ozram]

Difference here is that they're not selling the picture, which is why I mentioned "not the same picture itself being sold."

It's being used for marketing. This is a copyright issue... On its own, an off putting faux pas, but when considered in light of everything else done by CIG it reinforces the impression that they work in a toxic and dishonest environment. Stealing from artists, discriminating against backers, lying about what it is they are showing... Not pretty. Remember a few years back they tried to say the ships in arena commander functioned according to "real physics" and then quite quickly it was pointed out this wasn't true and that in fact they were hard xml stats dictating the way the ships could move? That's an example of a bold faced lie told by CIG to its backers. They treat people like idiots and then go on the attack when they are caught out. It's like the Republican Party of the gaming industry.

 

[SpaceFort]

It's being used for marketing. This is a copyright issue... On its own, an off putting faux pas, but when considered in light of everything else done by CIG it reinforces the impression that they work in a toxic and dishonest environment. Stealing from artists, discriminating against backers, lying about what it is they are showing... Not pretty. Remember a few years back they tried to say the ships in arena commander functioned according to "real physics" and then quite quickly it was pointed out this wasn't true and that in fact they were hard xml stats dictating the way the ships could move? That's an example of a bold faced lie told by CIG to its backers. They treat people like idiots and then go on the attack when they are caught out. It's like the Republican Party of the gaming industry.

I actually don't remember any of this, since my following of SC has not been nearly as intense, though I can say that regardless of whether or not they're marketing with it, it's still legal due to the ample modifications that allow it to fall under fair use. It bears a resemblance, but the watermark is not nearly visible enough (if at all) to be distinguished, and the only remaining similarities are: gender, pose, attire (barely), and literally nothing else.