And yet your first response is that it isn't anyone from RSI based on... what, exactly? A strong feeling? A little voice in your head? A tremendous bias?
Last edited:
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
And yet your first response is that it isn't anyone from RSI based on... what, exactly? A strong feeling? A little voice in your head? A tremendous bias?
Just like the letter it's based on desperate pleading.
Repped for Colombo!
So posting on a german IT news site about the support response got me the following
1) You don't understand english, this is not what this says
2) Of course they have to spend the money, you can't possibly get it back
3) Refunds are unethical
4) You're a terrible person for posting this.
5) They never said they'd do refunds
6) There was a TOS change?
7) You're a troll
8) Derek Smart
And of course: Been downvoted to oblivion.
I must now repent and go to the Church of Citizens to attone for my sins I guess.
1) You don't understand english, this is not what this says
2) Of course they have to spend the money, you can't possibly get it back
3) Refunds are unethical
4) You're a terrible person for posting this.
5) They never said they'd do refunds
6) There was a TOS change?
7) You're a troll
8) Derek Smart
And of course: Been downvoted to oblivion.
I must now repent and go to the Church of Citizens to attone for my sins I guess.
It's exactly the same process as previous controversy such as the exchange between Sandi and a backer, the Jennison letter and more recently the snowflake categorisations on their support portal.
It's fake!
They wouldn't word it like that!
Why would they even do that?
Then after a usually a very short time it becomes clear that it wasn't in fact faked and they all go quiet on it.
It's fake!
They wouldn't word it like that!
Why would they even do that?
Then after a usually a very short time it becomes clear that it wasn't in fact faked and they all go quiet on it.
Last edited:
Have to wonder why RSI isn't paying for it's doors if it's doing so well. Then again standard practice for running a business into the ground is to delay paying off creditors for as long as possible.
Under 4 weeks until citizencon. Is that when 2.6 is released or 3.0?
Not paying contractors are the first sign, next will be salaries will be delayed or split into two payments.
If I was working for CIG I would be very observant, because asking for reduction in the salary could also be one, or you are promises a % bonus when the product are being released. BIG SIGN RUUUUUN!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Sorry to bring you this message, that is if you go to the church of the faithful.
Don't think 2.6 has been confirmed for citizen Con - not sure. Those that might know seem to be taking the day off.
Did this in IL2 with about 8 of us and was great fun. You have to know how to MP though to be able to MP
Now the door pipeline is complete they can very quickly and efficiently go from selling themselves a door concept sketch to spending lots of backer money on it then claiming they made it themselves out of twigs, followed closely by not paying the expensive contractor who really made it and getting sued.
You just don't understand comedically incompetent space door development.
Last edited:
LOLOLOL oh my days.,....
Can SC ever win around here or is this jusat a thread of hate? Perhaps they should try DFev's model and throw in the worst MP code ever written and leave it at that? Do you not think that they should work to make the netcode you know...work?
This. + Rep- Also a delay of two months (FD) for a DLC isn't really the same as two years for a pre Alpha.
1st bold: Gross overstatement. Obviously SC MP code is worse. And there's a lot of other games that to a lot worse still.
Poin in case CQC MP works really well- that means that MP netcode works. The P2P infrastructure is less than stellar (pun!) because not every player has a fast internet connection. Or fast enough.
Poin in case- my MP experience has been really good.
2nd bold: They did work it- they keep on doing it and again without haveing to refacotr it completely. So- let's just say you are spreading just as much hate as you accuse others of doing.
I don't speak for everyone, but I've not once had issues with the networking in ED. More than that, I've seen the streams where they discuss their network models and intentions and it is sophisticated and a very workable solution to a very real problem: money.
I don't understand the "win" comment, what is their to win? People are discussing, sharing opinions. That there is a lot of criticism of SC is to be expected. CiG have surrounded themselves in drama, they have claimed to be the saviours of PC gaming, of fidelity and of space games. The product has a lot to live up to, so when it fails people are obviously going to call them out on it.
I feel like a lot of the contributors here take the criticisms too personally, as if they are the developers of the game.
No, the last step is not just silence, but acceptance of the ludicrous as the new norm:
"Assigning backers into categories is normal, this is to speed up efficiency"
"This kind of delay/goalpost shift/redesign is on par with other games in the industry"
"It's completely normal for you to not be able to get a refund"
"Actually getting a game is just a bonus, you don't have any right to receive anything for your money"
The DWE managed to get somewhere between 50 and 100 ships in instances on more than one occasion at their stop-over camps.
Not bad for the worst networking infrastructure EVAH!
I'm aware that is a small sample size, it does however show where the softcap limit is for "cooperative pve instancing".
Whether it would have become significantly less stable in a pvp environment is anyone's guess. Not sure if 100 pvpers have ever tried?
If 3.0 can produce stable instances of 24 to 48 players / ships, it will begin to show real promise as a foundation to build a game on.
Not bad for the worst networking infrastructure EVAH!
I'm aware that is a small sample size, it does however show where the softcap limit is for "cooperative pve instancing".
Whether it would have become significantly less stable in a pvp environment is anyone's guess. Not sure if 100 pvpers have ever tried?
If 3.0 can produce stable instances of 24 to 48 players / ships, it will begin to show real promise as a foundation to build a game on.
It's just that lacking any first hand, people have to come up with anything, no? Go figure why they are nearly always wrong...
- Status