Funny as.
A lot of the other skits too ... Don't Buy This Game: The Game, and Horse Whisperer VR. lol
The Star Citizen Thread v8
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
- Status
Funny as.
A lot of the other skits too ... Don't Buy This Game: The Game, and Horse Whisperer VR. lol
"Future work estimates are just that: estimates."
How much or little will they complete in 2018? That looks too ambitious for CIG.
If Crytek is granted an injunction then CIG can't develop anything.
Last edited:
[video=youtube;oFkeEhkWXmA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFkeEhkWXmA[/video]
I thought I'd leave this one here. I assumed (correctly) that this is a white knight video, and it is.
Sadly, I had hoped it would be a bit more objectified and less biased...
Someone's been drinking the koolaid it seems. Best lulzworthy quote from this video was "Chris Roberts has spent the funds well..."
[haha]
I thought I'd leave this one here. I assumed (correctly) that this is a white knight video, and it is.
Sadly, I had hoped it would be a bit more objectified and less biased...
Someone's been drinking the koolaid it seems. Best lulzworthy quote from this video was "Chris Roberts has spent the funds well..."
[haha]
Last edited:
I'm so ^&*(&(*ing sick of how all the fanboi SC stuff uses concept art for the cover images, it's never stuff you can actually see in game which speaks volumes about how willing they are to deceive and dream and sucker others in with it
It's always been the same - they talk about and show stuff that's promised and/or from demo reels as if it's in and working now.
They're always living in the expected future completely ignoring the fact that a lot of what's there now simply doesn't work.
Another fun thing in the new TOS: CIG once again tries to contradict consumer law by saying that the money people give them is theirs once the product their customers bought is [undefined] complete or just when CIG has spent it. You know, whenever. "We used it so it's ours, sucks to be you." [haha]
Last edited:
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
Is CIG showing a middle finger to non-subscribers, or simply fail at the basic task of drawing a hand?
I hate how nonsensical this argument is, even though it's made solely to discourage people from the refund requests, not because it makes any sense (hint: it doesn't). First - they are bound by law either to deliver the product they have collected that have been preordered from them, no "ifs" or "buts". Second - do they exchange every cent of the pledge to banknotes so they can note their numbers and know precisely when the cash was spent? How else would they prove that someone's money has been spent? If their books are so specific, and if I was in an alternative universe where I have paid for the game, I would like to know on what my (theoretical) pledge has been spent. Was it someone's monitor? A programmer's wage? A cofee machine? A buckle on heavy marine armour #5? Three ply toilet paper (executives only)?
You know, I just imagined CIG opening a savings account for every single backer and withdrawing funds sequentially when they're needed. If they did that, their argument would work.
Last edited:
"Future work estimates are just that: estimates."
How much or little will they complete in 2018? That looks too ambitious for CIG.
If Crytek is granted an injunction then CIG can't develop anything.
In Q2, about a year and a half after they cobbled together Star Marine, they're intending to deliver "rudimentary" FPS AI. Which I take to mean the "stand on the spot and shoot in your direction", human-skinned turrets that they had in the holiday Squadron 42 stream. But somehow by the end of the year they expect to have AI that can "defend ships from boarders" (Q3) and "land on planets and deploy reinforcements" (Q4). As usual, CIG's expectations diverge from reality exponentially according to how far in the future they're projecting.
But I'm looking forward to seeing just how badly they can screw up AI. Assuming, as you say, they're still around to deliver any of it.
As with so much else....it depends on how you define SCAM.
As a criminal fraud....probably not.
As a slightly shady entreprise, where development is dragged out in an attempt to separate as much money from the backers as possible and where the end product is not the one originally (or even currently) promised......yes, there is a much stronger argument for calling it a scam.
My problem is that I like the vision and game Chris Roberts talks about, and I also believe that it is also technically possible...
...but I also think something, somewhere has gone wrong because what CIG is showing us is NOT typical for what they have raised or apparently spent, and much of their planned gameplay and mechanics appears to be in the nature of afterthought rather than well thought through. As in...poor.
Add in their transparent cash grabs....does all that add up to scam? I do think CIG is trying and the devs there are trying hard to deliver the game we want and expect....
but I also think the game I think we all want is...at this stage...impossible to deliver. I'm certain CIG will deliver "something"...but I doubt it will be the BDSSE.
Not unless something major changes.
It's still...IMO....possible to deliver but that would..again, IMO....require a major step back to allow the basic game systems to be reworked into something which can support the vision.
So...is it a scam?
Yes...and no....and maybe.
Legally? Probably not but it certainly feels and looks more than a little shady
Yeah, people who have no idea about history of the project will see that vid and throw all the money at them. Because it looks great, lets be honest! Once again marketing department did a good job. I just hope that after actually playing the thing they will start asking questions and do (what ironically white knights are keep telling us goons) do some reaserch...
Is CIG showing a middle finger to non-subscribers, or simply fail at the basic task of drawing a hand?
https://i.imgur.com/zb75z8y.jpg
Now that you pointed it out its hard to dismiss it
cannot unsee
And yeah, I agree, it looks really good.
I know its a lie and all of it are deception and non-existing but it does look good.
As the saying goes: why choose?Is CIG showing a middle finger to non-subscribers, or simply fail at the basic task of drawing a hand?
https://i.imgur.com/zb75z8y.jpg
…and even then, the argument would faceplant right into the pretty hard and nasty of wall represented by the fact that it wouldn't even be a refund yet. It would be a cancelled pre-order since there is nothing to deliver yet. Refunds might happen if the goods were delivered and then returned, but we're a couple of years away from that scenario being relevant.
"False Advertising" should be engraved on the company logo as their middle name......
Last edited:
Gain a (usually monetary) advantage by deceiving the victim, i. e. intentionally lying to relieve someone of their money.
In the case of Star Citizen this happened without doubt. There are numerous proofs including court documents around and there is more to come.
It never suppose to be a scam, I honestly think they wanted to make a great game. Thats why I backed it, it sounded amazing. But at this point I start to believe they actually know that it wont happen but still trying to milk ppl out of their money.
The Crytek vs CIG lawsuit can prevent Star Citizen from being released. The other way is CIG running out of money before shipping Star Citizen or a backer revolt that they mass-demand a refund of their money.
I think the lawsuit is the most likely way.
Last edited:
Lawsuit *will* prevent a) release any upcoming alphas because of injunction which CryTek will get for at least some time b) will squeeze CIG out of money one way or another.
I just love how classic misdirect is this 'roadmap'. CIG is kaput. SC is kaput. It is just amazing how when we talk about SC everyone is huge skeptic in opposite world. There's nothing to cling on. Nothing.
That's a bit hasty, don't you think? The case doesn't seem to be clear enough to warrant such a level of overkill. Hell, I wouldn't be sure of the motion to dismiss being denied, though I think it will be.
I have seen injunctions granted on much more vague merits. Especially if CIG tries to move very aggressively. Judge might see it as wanting to have a cake and eat it too and will want to protect assets which might be owned by CryTek at the end of trial.
As for dismissal....seriously. Snow in hell has better chances. CIG has no way to pull that off. They try to dismiss IP case on one point (rather weakly to begin with), while rest of them are as strong as ever - unless they want to claim that CryEngine isn't CryTek IP.
Also CryTek attorneys responded with fire.
p.s. I will point out that I still don't know which will win.
Last edited:
- Status