Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 3 Sep 2018.
His ability to make a working game is seriously in doubt, but his ability to sell snake oil is unmatched!
That said being as they are loosing the legal battles with Crytek and that is likely to hit them hard in the wallet gotta get some more money from somewhere.
I think this is a great example of Robert's opinion on the 'worth of stuff' with a skewed take on how he should be spending the money he's got. They are constantly adding in new fluff rather than releasing a game and adding content from then on.
I don't believe he's set out to scam anyone, but he's a terrible project manager who keeps moving the goalposts.
Star Citizen kinda reminds me of Bitcoin - The guys that have invested their life savings are absolutely adamant that it will be the best thing in the world ever and it'll absolutely be worth the time and money. The other end of the spectrum is filled with the guys that think it's nothing but a scam that will utterly implode on itself and leave it's supporters broken and crying... Then there's the middle ground guys that put a bit in and are happy to HODL and see what happens a few years down the line.
The only difference is that Satoshi was smart enough to keep himself anonymous, whereas Robert's is public enemy no.1.
A Start Citizen article on the day I was about to bitch and moan due to the 1 - 3 months dispatch time quoted by amazon for the 2950x... coincidence?
It is far to be "extravagant convention". No Cheerleader, not Orchestra... As a Crowdfunded company with +193M$ they have to deliver message. There is only one event versus two in the past.
Mistake was to propose only ticket or digital ticket. For sure next convention will be smaller or they will adjust it based of digital goodies sold before.
This is not the end. Learning curve, everything is back to normal and CR did made another great move.
Now let's focus on what the keynote will be and possible roadmap. As long we got what we paid for, a game requested by Backers, such episode will be history.
Hey, look, it's Joe Blober.
The game requested by backers was a single-player title to launch in November 2014. Safe to say that ship has sailed, my friend.
Even though the judge has thrown out Crytek's demand for "punitive damages", meaning that at worst the case will cost CIG the original contract fee ($2million) plus legal fees?
I watched the recent "Around the Verse" which mentioned paid for tickets to stream the event and did a massive double take.
I have been a vociferous critic of Roberts within the Star Citizen gaming thread, but this one takes the entire biscuit tin and clears out the shop of all biscuits. "Having slept on it" in reality: "saw the huge backlash and s**t myself".
Don't just read the pro SC posts, read the anti ones too. The judge kept nearly all of the demands, any of which can be used to extract money. I would worry a lot, they are going to have to burn a lot of money they don't have to make this go away.
Read the pdf I linked, that's the actual document filed by the judge.
I've not read anything about it recently, but was very nervous in the beginning when people were "backing" £1000+ on ships and stuff.
Does the game exist? How's the functionality vs the promise?
My understanding (as a layperson, not a legal bod) is that the recent ruling could only have been a win for CIG - Crytek filed claims against CIG, CIG then made a "motion to dismiss" (no idea what the technical term is) the charges. The judge ruled that some of Crytek's claims were not valid and could not be heard in court, and that the remainder could and should be heard, but crucially the judge didn't say whether they had a good enough case to win or not, just that CIG hadn't done enough to have the demands thrown out at this stage. Essentially, the best possible outcome for Crytek would have been none of their demands to have been thrown out, and the best outcome for CIG would have been for all of the demands to have been thrown out.
In that sense, CIG won, because one of the key claims that was thrown out was for punitive damages. So any damages that Crytek may extract will be limited to the low single-digit millions at best, as I understand it. I suspect that unless the court finds entirely in one side's favour, both sides will be left with substantial legal bills, but I don't think we're talking about astronomical sums that will bankrupt CIG (unless they're already knacked financially, of course, which is up for debate and speculation).
The game exists in alpha. The current functionality FAR exceeds the original promises. I'm sad when I hear people trash-talk Star Citizen. I'm a backer, and I'm really excited about what they're building, even if it's taking a really long time. Being able to watch their shows about development, and play the alpha version of the game, both take away the pain of anticipation.
Story behind this dude?
"hard-earned including" ... a new currency, perhaps!
No: a different, massively multiplayer online game called Star Citizen exists in alpha; the single-player story-driven game called Star Citizen that was actually promised has not been released in any form whatsoever.
No: the current alpha includes various features, some of which work better than others, but is missing pretty much everything that was promised. You can only fly a small selection of ships, regardless of what you've paid for; there's no story; you can only visit a small number of pre-generated locations; the performance is incredibly variable, thanks largely to the fact that the game has half-added so many features that weren't part of the original scope while also switching engines part-way through development.
Hell, even people who say Roberts and co. should be cut some slack admit that 'A lot was missing in Star Citizen 3.0 that players were upset about. We still don’t have any of the professions added in, and the Item 2.0 system, which should allow for more in-depth customization of ships and better handling of cargo and items in general, is only implemented in its most basic form. Performance isn’t that great, NPCs are dumb and glitchy, and there’s a ton of other bugs, glitches, and missing features.'
Here's a post on the pro-Star Citizen subreddit: it's seven months old, but as far as I'm aware still a pretty much complete list of what you can actually do in Star Citizen at the moment. The top post admits that it's not yet a game in any real sense of the word, and this confirms the ever-present performance issues.
This newer post from a Star Citizen fan amuses me: it's billed as being about 'the progress of the project over the last 6 years,' but talks purely about how many people Roberts employs across how many companies. There ain't a word about how the game has progressed, just "hey, we now have >500 people working on it, so it must be good, right?"
I'm glad you're excited, and I really do hope that Roberts delivers - but what exists in Star Citizen Alpha 3.x is nowhere near what was promised, nowhere near what $200 million in development budget should buy you, and nowhere near being beta-ready, let alone feature-complete. Then there's the little matter of the single-player Squadron 42, the original Star Citizen vision, which Roberts et al appear to be ignoring entirely in favour of adding in yet another ship you can buy but not fly.
He's in deep with Star Citizen, and spends his time defending it on every forum and comment section he can find. Including, apparently, this one.
"Hard-earned" is a common slang term used to refer to one's earnings, as in "I forked over my hard-earned and got nowt but promises in return."
The TLDR version of events surrounding Star Citizen as told in the year 2045:
"Should have used the money to liberate Freelancer from the clutches of MIcrosoft and done a HD remaster of that"
I know people have spunked a lot of cash on the ships etc. But it felt like people were going to get bumped (mugged). $200m is an amazing amount of cash to spend on anything.
I do hope the company deliver as promised...
Which being a legal document means we don't really understand it, so have to get others to interpret it. Here's an anti-SC view which goes into the ruling in detail: http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6560/
Personally I take both view points with many pinches of salt, and tend to think the result will be somewhere down the middle, but even that would be a huge amount of money.
Separate names with a comma.