Post by: dsmart on October 11, 2017, 04:18:11 PM
Some of these are now up on refunds Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/), along with a helpful thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/75m2z5/small_claims_court_procedure_eu_uk_anyone/) on legal recourse.
So far nobody knows what is going on. My one credible source was the one who told me that he has to check around because they (devs) have no clue wtf management is even doing from one minute to the next. They he came back about an hour go and basically said that's the policy going forward.
He did say that the person who notified him, said that she was told that it was always the policy, but that they were issuing refunds on a case by case basis all this time and not something they were required to do.
What's puzzling is that this whole "refund dump" on Reddit happened within the span of 48 hrs following not only my latest article, but also my Tweet reminding people that refunds were going away. I would hate to think that CIG are still reacting to what I'm saying.
Fact is, they apparently are clearing their refund backlog and someone probably hit the "bulk" check mark and hit the send button on "Fuck you, no moah refunds". Of course not everyone is going to run off to Reddit.
The wording of some of those CS emails though, is highly suspect as well, which is why I am stil l not entirely sure that all of them are real. But CIG hires largely incompetent people, so there's that.
Post by: nightfire on October 12, 2017, 01:29:55 AM
BREAKING! Confirmed. NO REFUNDS policy now in place for Star Citizen. Not sure when it will be across the board. We knew this was coming.
Well, you called it. I repeat: you called it. There's no denying that, and even some of the Shitizens over there seem to admit, teeth clenched, that you were right on this one occasion, by pure chance, and that you're to blame for it of course ;)
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Post by: dsmart on October 12, 2017, 07:38:11 AM
If they don't release it during CC2017, they will probably hang on to it until last minute in Dec after the anniversary sale (like they did with 2.6 last year). Given the condition of 3.0, they are completely and utterly fucked because:
1) If they DON'T release 3.0 around the CC2017 or anniversary period, they look bad.
2) If they DO release 3.0 around the CC2017 or anniversary period, they look worse because, truly, 3.0 is shit and I don't see how they are going to fix it in the next two months for the anniversary, let alone in the next two weeks for CC2017.
Post by: Backer42 on October 12, 2017, 01:45:25 PM
They would have had at least some kind of awful, broken game with bad art direction by now.
Instead they decided in 2016 to waste time on smoke & mirrors for GamesCom and go with nothing but propaganda on YouTube for 18 months in a failed attempt to polish some early access techdemo.
Post by: dsmart on October 12, 2017, 05:22:13 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/760co4/refunded_by_cheque_that_cant_be_cashed/
Post by: StanTheMan on October 12, 2017, 11:08:35 PM
$10K+ backer. He's in Canada. CIG sends him a check he can't cash.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/760co4/refunded_by_cheque_that_cant_be_cashed/
These people have had plenty of time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Post by: dsmart on October 14, 2017, 07:06:27 AM
SQ42 isn't coming in 2017.
Yeah, I totally called this back in May (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/5276/)
Quote
SQUADRON 42 DELAYED TO 2018
As I reported on Twitter earlier today, several sources, as they have done twice before in 2015 and 2016, have once again informed me that SQ42 is now a 2018 game. In fact, the current internal schedule shows it stretching all the way to mid-2018, and possibly beyond. The past two times that I had reported this, some people didn’t believe it. And CIG kept denying it. This Sept 2016 denial was my favorite. Both 2015 and 2016 came and went. Right up to the blatant lies that CIG told during the events (GamesCom and CitizenCon) of Q4/2016. I wrote extensively about that in my Shattered Dreams blog from Oct 2016.
Sources also tell me that they’re frantically trying to either get a preview or trailer out before the end of the year. So yeah, probably a repeat of Q4/2016 all over again.
Oh, and they have definitely chopped up the SQ42 game. I reported on this back in 2016 as well, but they have apparently stuck to the goal of releasing the once full game, into bits and pieces in order to “keep things going and raising money”. It makes perfect sense if you ask me. They know that the minute they release any “final” version of any portion of this train-wreck project, that’s it’s all over. So why not maintain the bait and switch Status Quo by splitting a full game into parts, then sell them separately? If you recall, they did that back in 2016 when they split SQ42 from Star Citizen, in order to sell it separately. Except this time, they’re going to split SQ42 even further. Which, now that I think about it, explains why you can buy that game for $15 (instead of $45) if you buy it as a bundle ($45 + $15) with Star Citizen. My God man! We’re doing it all wrong.
This is the full newsletter (http://mailchi.mp/cloudimperiumgames/meet-the-defender-of-the-banu-140549?e=6c4c03b6fc).
(https://imgur.com/jH790S6.jpg)
It's hilarious that they announced this two months ahead of time. It's almost as if they are worried about money, so using the promise of something, as a confidence trick to get backers to keep giving them money.
They also removed the date from the SQ42 page (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/squadron42).
(https://i.imgur.com/2b6w46L.png)
Post by: NIDTechnology on October 15, 2017, 01:29:00 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/76gkts/ethics_unconfirmed_star_citizen_devs_may_have/
Mods have labeled it unverified, more confirmation needed. Need some more users burned by RSI on board.
Post by: dsmart on October 15, 2017, 05:41:49 AM
Post by: dsmart on October 15, 2017, 05:53:45 AM
Quote
"As I've pointed out before, back in January 2015, Roberts delivered a presentation in which he claimed that not only would the first episode of Squadron 42 be released by Fall 2015, but the full commercial release - meaning SQ42 and the persistent universe / MMO - would happen by the end of 2016. He made this claim at 1:32:06 in this video.
At the time of this presentation, the PU wasn't yet in the alpha stage. He seemed to think that his team could get through all of alpha, get through all of beta, and optimize enough for a decent MMO launch in 2 years, all while concurrently working on a single-player game. By saying this, he demonstrated that he either didn't know what he was talking about, or he was being dishonest. It was probably a combination of the two.
Now, almost 3 years after that presentation, backers still haven't seen a mission demo of SQ42, and the MMO is in alpha with, I'm guessing, another 1-2 years of alpha ahead of them. At this rate, I would be impressed if the first episode of SQ42 gets released by 2020, and the MMO gets released by 2023."
Post by: Ghostmaker on October 15, 2017, 08:04:45 PM
Wonder if they're in shock or mourning over in the SC reddit?
Post by: dsmart on October 16, 2017, 04:59:08 AM
It appears adults are running things in /r/games, as nobody's getting shouted down for the dissent.
Wonder if they're in shock or mourning over in the SC reddit?
/r/games has always been that way. Which is why Shitizens dare not start their shit in there.
Post by: dsmart on October 17, 2017, 06:05:07 AM
(https://i.redd.it/7aga6olf89sz.jpg)
Well, it's not like we didn't try to warn them.
Post by: Motto on October 17, 2017, 07:01:06 AM
Post by: nightfire on October 17, 2017, 08:38:11 AM
Post by: dsmart on October 17, 2017, 12:55:25 PM
Aha, they are now upgrading to the "we have actually spent your money on developing the game, so there is no legal ground to ask for your money back" approach. Too bad EU laws don't go for that :D
Yeah. But it's even more hilarious that a company with a dedicated CS staff, is somehow too busy to look into refunds. Because, you know, they're probably working on the shitty Evocati build for CitizenCon 2017. :vince:
Post by: dsmart on October 17, 2017, 12:58:19 PM
I have no compassion for them... not anymore. We've been hinting at this, the tipping point, the mechanics of the Ponzi scheme for months now, here and "over there". Everyone with half a brain could see the writing on the wall. Tough luck for those who are now left holding the bag.
Indeed. But mostly it's those who tend to back these projects then forget about them for awhile, that are going to be the most shocked. As for those clowns on Reddit? Nope, I have zero sympathy at this point. Back when I spent MY OWN MONEY on legal action (http://www.dereksmart.org/2015/08/star-citizen-how-i-got-involved/) to hold CIG accountable, I was attacked for it.
The zealots will probably hang on to the end. Though there is enough evidence to suggest that most them have quietly refunded, while pretending that they still have skin in the game and are holding the torch. I personally want them to keep funding the Golden parachute for croberts and his family and friends. The fallout would be that much more hilarious.
Post by: StanTheMan on October 17, 2017, 04:23:01 PM
I have no compassion for them... not anymore. We've been hinting at this, the tipping point, the mechanics of the Ponzi scheme for months now, here and "over there". Everyone with half a brain could see the writing on the wall. Tough luck for those who are now left holding the bag.
For years ....
Post by: dsmart on November 14, 2017, 07:26:15 AM
Quote
BREAKING NEWS! Well, it had to happen. Getting word of major worldwide job losses coming to the Star Citizen project. Apparently keeping it quiet until after the upcoming holiday sales. We'll see.
Post by: Motto on November 14, 2017, 01:27:27 PM
It's a shame really, that nobody saw this coming. You would think that somebody with a little knowledge would have tried to get some attention for it. Maybe a blog, a couple of tweets. Something like that. Oh well. maybe on Chris' next project?
Post by: Spunky Munkee on November 14, 2017, 04:29:49 PM
I'm sure he would claim it was due to changing tech and he couldn't make the engine work properly with the newer technology but if you give me more of your money I can build the universe properly.
Post by: N0mad on November 15, 2017, 01:04:23 AM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/930441319696257025QuoteBREAKING NEWS! Well, it had to happen. Getting word of major worldwide job losses coming to the Star Citizen project. Apparently keeping it quiet until after the upcoming holiday sales. We'll see.
Surely it's more likely that they'll quietly try to reduce the numbers gradually - not replacing people who leave / retire etc. If they've got to the point where they need to do lay-offs then they're completely f#*ked. Couldn't they still let people go on the quiet anyway, get them to sign NDAs so they don't run off to the media etc?
Post by: nightfire on November 15, 2017, 01:42:28 AM
Couldn't they still let people go on the quiet anyway, get them to sign NDAs so they don't run off to the media etc?
Impossible to keep a lid on this. Those people have to find work elsewhere, disclose their job history, change their current affiliation on LinkedIn etc., and future employers and work colleagues in the know aren't bound by NDA.
Post by: dsmart on November 15, 2017, 05:33:20 AM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/930441319696257025QuoteBREAKING NEWS! Well, it had to happen. Getting word of major worldwide job losses coming to the Star Citizen project. Apparently keeping it quiet until after the upcoming holiday sales. We'll see.
Surely it's more likely that they'll quietly try to reduce the numbers gradually - not replacing people who leave / retire etc.
They've been doing that already these past few months. A lot of experienced people are leaving.
Quote
If they've got to the point where they need to do lay-offs then they're completely f#*ked. Couldn't they still let people go on the quiet anyway, get them to sign NDAs so they don't run off to the media etc?
Nah, no way they can stop the signal. Besides, most of them hate management anyway, and they're already talking.
Post by: N0mad on November 15, 2017, 05:37:03 AM
Nah, no way they can stop the signal. Besides, most of them hate management anyway, and they're already talking.
Wow, sounds like the ELE is reaching a new phase then :laugh:
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 15, 2017, 08:19:39 PM
Wouldn't surprise me if RSI was teetering on the brink.
Post by: dsmart on November 22, 2017, 08:22:30 AM
They do have an anniversary special sales (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/home-featured-content/16249-The-Anniversary-Special) event though. So there's that.
Nothing affects the obligatory end of year JPEG ship sale cash grab.
Post by: dsmart on November 22, 2017, 11:21:37 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/fbYc8UN.png)
YES!! I totally called it that they had no choice but to release something called 3.0 by year end. They had NO choice. Like, at all.
God I can't wait for Shitizens to get a load of what we've been playing this whole time. It's an epic disaster.
Then again, seeing as the anniversary sale ends Dec 2nd, this could be a ruse to get whales to fund their lies, then at the last minute, it's delayed to 2018.
Post by: Motto on November 22, 2017, 12:52:34 PM
Post by: Motto on November 22, 2017, 12:56:42 PM
For some reason, there is no anniversary live stream (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/citizens/16267-This-Week-In-Star-Citizen) this year. I wonder if it's because they can't actually play 3.0 live, since it flat out broken. :laugh:
They do have an anniversary special sales (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/home-featured-content/16249-The-Anniversary-Special) event though. So there's that.
Nothing affects the obligatory end of year JPEG ship sale cash grab.
Just look at this shit This week in Star Citizen (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/citizens/16267-This-Week-In-Star-Citizen) Dafuq is that? You're suppost to be building a game! Not running an international media conglomerate. Who do you think you are? Robert Murdoch? Ted Turner? Steven Spielberg? George Lucas? All of them combined?
Post by: dsmart on November 22, 2017, 01:28:29 PM
Post by: nightfire on November 22, 2017, 02:02:44 PM
Latest Star Citizen email just went out to the super elite such as myself. You can read it here.
Where on Earth is the "Sol Sytem" ?? :rolleyes:
This lack of attention to grammatical fidelity sure is worrying for a management that frets about details in space.
Post by: StanTheMan on November 22, 2017, 05:22:50 PM
Latest Star Citizen email just went out to the super elite such as myself. You can read it here.
Where on Earth is the "Sol Sytem" ?? :rolleyes:
This lack of attention to grammatical fidelity sure is worrying for a management that frets about details in space.
It is next to the AR system.
Post by: dsmart on November 27, 2017, 03:10:07 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/KgF9KWA.png)
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/16259-ORIGIN-Anniversary-Special-Sale
Post by: Motto on November 27, 2017, 03:37:24 PM
Is that guy really that fucking retarded or what?
Post by: dsmart on November 27, 2017, 04:00:35 PM
Reply to your Tweet: You do realize that it's limited quantities not limited in a way that it's never going to be on sale again right?
Is that guy really that fucking retarded or what?
If you have to ask, you clearly have too much faith in broken-brained people.
2014...
https://twitter.com/RangerXML/status/520748402737688577
https://twitter.com/1stVerseProbs/status/502432405639421952
Post by: krylite on November 27, 2017, 10:22:59 PM
If you have to ask, you clearly have too much faith in broken-brained people.
2014...
https://twitter.com/RangerXML/status/520748402737688577
https://twitter.com/1stVerseProbs/status/502432405639421952
omigosh, what a farce. A '890 jump'street for $1k? :shittypop: That pic with the guy holding the glossy brochure(!) reminds me of typical financial scams and ponzis reported on episodes of "American Greed".
Where hapless 'investors' got glossy brochures and media from the ceo before they got left holding empty bag after the worthless stock dumped.
I wonder if the law gets involved with the SC ELE, if there will be a clawback mess among the fracus for the missing millions..
Post by: nightfire on November 28, 2017, 02:10:41 AM
That pic with the guy holding the glossy brochure(!) reminds me of typical financial scams and ponzis reported on episodes of "American Greed".
Worst of all, that guy doesn't look like a gullible kid showing off his plastic light saber which was presented to him by Santa Claus. No, he appears to be a grown-up adult who should know better than setting $1k of his earnings on fire for virtual fluff. I also love how these people grin proudly, surely believing that they've really accomplished something, while totally not realizing how naive they are.
Post by: Motto on November 28, 2017, 03:05:53 AM
Post by: Greggy_D on November 28, 2017, 05:54:36 AM
Whoa!! The 890 Jump is back on sale. Man, they're throwing everything out the window. But don't call it desperation though. :shrug:
(https://i.imgur.com/KgF9KWA.png)
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/16259-ORIGIN-Anniversary-Special-Sale
Down to 380 left. Morons.
Post by: dsmart on November 28, 2017, 02:24:41 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3bJCbsY.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FQIbPBd.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/10WbRKM.png)
Post by: Motto on November 28, 2017, 02:56:11 PM
Post by: N0mad on November 28, 2017, 03:04:46 PM
Post by: randomness on November 28, 2017, 03:10:20 PM
Someone should contact someone like TotalBiscuit, Boogie, JimSterling, YongYea etc.....
Post by: dsmart on November 28, 2017, 03:18:08 PM
They must be so desperate for cash that they don't care about any negative headlines at this stage. I can't see this going well.
Yes, they are in fact. I am sitting on some stuff that I am under explicit instructions not to share. As I've stated before, it's bad - real bad. Just bookmark this post.
Post by: Motto on November 28, 2017, 04:35:56 PM
Post by: StanTheMan on November 28, 2017, 06:42:19 PM
They must be so desperate for cash that they don't care about any negative headlines at this stage. I can't see this going well.
Once you are selling $50 chunks of virtual land your MMO (yes I know) is fucked. Second Life .....
Inevitably anyone owning land near the popular hubs will get fantastically wealthy/powerful or griefed
The idea you can mitigate this because there is plenty more land out there is absurd to anyone that has a clue how an economy works.
Post by: Aya Reiko on November 29, 2017, 12:11:37 AM
And, if you can divulge, what are the conditions where can share?They must be so desperate for cash that they don't care about any negative headlines at this stage. I can't see this going well.
Yes, they are in fact. I am sitting on some stuff that I am under explicit instructions not to share. As I've stated before, it's bad - real bad. Just bookmark this post.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on November 29, 2017, 01:11:40 AM
According to this internet rumor they need 250-350 million more to completely wipe the slate and start to build a custom game engine. I wish I had remembered where I read this but it's probably just another swinging dick making things up based on the probability of what they see.
I think that CIG is at a dead end and should have tried making a custom game engine as soon as they went beyond Squadron 42's scope but Robbers ran his scam until all the rope was gone. Let's see if they start laying people off.
Even as deluded as some of these cultists are I doubt that many will ante up a second time and It is my opinion that if some do they will just lose their money to no avail.
This is nothing but speculation on top of rumors so don't place too much stock in it, then again, land sales, ships that were limited one time sales are for sale again, reeks of desperation.
This is so much more entertaining that playing that sad assed game.
Post by: dsmart on November 29, 2017, 06:12:49 AM
Post by: Flashwit on November 29, 2017, 09:51:40 AM
This SHOULD be definitive proof that things have gone badly wrong. How you gonna sell land when we haven't even heard of concepts for what you can do with that land? There's no logical reason to buy this shit.
The comments on the homefront are definitely not positive but there are the usual spindoctors spamming up the front page with submissions along the lines of "ACTUALLY, I think land claims are great!"
Post by: dsmart on November 29, 2017, 05:11:26 PM
Post by: Spunky Munkee on November 29, 2017, 06:49:28 PM
Don't you feel better now?
It would have taken much longer to get to this glorious moment of the 3.0 Pre Alpha without all of those ship sales.
We would still be in 2.6 Alpha or a previous version. This is money well spent. Chris Roberts would have been holding up a cardboard sign in one hand and a tin cup in the other at a freeway exit in California if not for this money. All of these people now have jobs, especially those hard working folks who give the refunds to backers. We need backers to continually give CIG money so that those horrible scummy backers who want to leave the fold can get their refunds and allow the true believers to be pure.
No this is definitely and absolutely not a PONZI scam. In a Ponzi scam participants bring in fresh meat so they can profit, In Star Citizen the only persons who actually profit are at the very top of the pyramid. In Star Citizen backers talk up the game because misery loves company. They seem to think that if their numbers swell the game cannot fail. On the positive side it enables refundees to get out, who needs them. Chris Roberts only wants true believers, and if they are not true believers they will be silenced on the forums.
I am certain that Star Citizen is the best thing to happen to these backers since Prozac.
Post by: Bubba on November 30, 2017, 03:09:22 AM
From the land claim Q&A (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/16292-Q-A-Land-Claim-License/), I drew up a list of features they are promising, but haven't implemented yet:
Quote
3D Models/Objects: Beacon, Claim licenses
Outposts:
Outpost crafting systems
Outpost modules:
habitation
armory
refinery
hydroponics
storage
medical
Automated Defense drones
Planetary Weather
Sandstorms
Electrical storms
winds
snow
other
Planetary Geophysics:
Earthquakes
Motion Detection Alerting System
Claim registration system
Space Criminal System
Destruction of Claim Posts
Piracy
Theft
UEE Protection system, UEE Patrols
Dedicated Mercenaries
Private Defense contracts
Land designation systems.
Available for Claim
Reserved
National parks
Wildlife Refuges
Nature PReserves
Industry:
Mining
Commercial Production
Retail outlets
Analysis:
Core samples
Seismographic surveys
They are very clear that "These claim licenses are being made available for pledging to help fund Star Citizen’s development." In other words, they will use the money to fund the development of features.
Now, if they're using the the money from this sale to pay for the development of previously-promised features, then what you have is not a Ponzi scheme, but the incorporation of Ponzi elements into a different funding scheme, a Ponzi-like, if you will (or a Ponzi-like-like), specifically:
Announcing and selling new features to pay for the development of already-promised ones.
Crowdfunding implicitly monetizes feature creep; by having a continuous funding model, they are continuously creeping.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on November 30, 2017, 03:22:46 AM
I know what it is.
Sickening.
My fervent wish is to see the perpetrators behind bars a la Bernie Madoff.
Post by: Backer42 on November 30, 2017, 08:37:31 AM
Crowdfunding implicitly monetizes feature creep; by having a continuous funding model, they are continuously creeping.Star Citizen has nothing to do with crowd funding, at all. So their Guinness record is bullshit.
Crowd funding means that a high number of people pool low amounts of money together to reach a certain funding goal. Once that goal is reached, that sum is then invested. This way a group of people could buy or lease a ocean-going ship for a research mission for example.
Early access video game / digital content pre-order scams have nothing to do with crowd funding.
There was only one thing anywhere near that term: the Star Citizen Kickstarter campaign. This one was intentionally fraudulent, as the goal sum ($500,000) was set way too low to actually implement the project description on Kickstarter within the promised time frame on Kickstarter. You cannot develop a AAA video game with $500,000. So the factual result of this Kickstarter: CIG didn't deliver and ran away with that Kickstarter money ($2 million).
Everything else including selling non-existing digital items on your website is not crowd funding. Publishing a ever-increasing fantasy number (instead of legitimate financials with costs, sales and revenues) is not crowd funding.
Post by: StanTheMan on November 30, 2017, 08:49:44 AM
Crowdfunding implicitly monetizes feature creep; by having a continuous funding model, they are continuously creeping.Star Citizen has nothing to do with crowd funding, at all. So their Guinness record is bullshit.
Crowd funding means that a high number of people pool low amounts of money together to reach a certain funding goal. Once that goal is reached, that sum is then invested. This way a group of people could buy or lease a ocean-going ship for a research mission for example.
Early access video game / digital content pre-order scams have nothing to do with crowd funding.
There was only one thing anywhere near that term: the Star Citizen Kickstarter campaign. This one was intentionally fraudulent, as the goal sum ($500,000) was set way too low to actually implement the project description on Kickstarter within the promised time frame on Kickstarter. You cannot develop a AAA video game with $500,000. So the factual result of this Kickstarter: CIG didn't deliver and ran away with that Kickstarter money ($2 million).
Everything else including selling non-existing digital items on your website is not crowd funding. Publishing a ever-increasing fantasy number (instead of legitimate financials with costs, sales and revenues) is not crowd funding.
Yes because Elite Dangerous would still be being Crowdfunded to this day if we allow it to mean ..making any money from people that supported you get a venture of the ground .
Post by: Motto on November 30, 2017, 09:22:17 AM
Post by: Flashwit on November 30, 2017, 10:13:51 AM
Post by: Aya Reiko on December 01, 2017, 12:06:12 AM
Let's just say it's idiot-funded at this point and call it day.More like funded by the whaling industry and yes.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 01, 2017, 12:55:47 AM
It's not as if there have not been failures in the past but never to this extreme. I doubt that any game has seen such large contributions by so many only to see it wasted in such abandon when it was clear for a very long time that Chris Roberts had chosen the wrong engine for the wrong reason and refused to cut his losses and start over.
The single largest example of the sunken cost fallacy was not by any backer, or all the backers but by Chris Robbers himself. He refused to change course when I am certain his hired help told him this could not be done with this engine, if at all yet he persisted. I cannot fathom why, perhaps others just nodded their heads and worked at it knowing it couldn't be done but this was a paying gig and Robbers would not listen. He got what he deserved. On the other hand he might have known but decided that as long as the money was rolling in it did not matter if it worked, only that backers still had faith that he could succeed. He certainly worked hard to maintain the false narrative and keep the expectations high. For that reason alone I think it may have started with the former but the latter was his motivation for continuing on this path.
I think that every day more and more of them are beginning to realize the folly of their way and don't want to be without a chair when the music stops. The worst of the citizens will be left sitting on the floor. :wave:
Post by: krylite on December 02, 2017, 05:29:04 AM
Post by: N0mad on December 02, 2017, 05:37:14 AM
Post by: premiumnugz on December 02, 2017, 10:24:35 AM
One of the things I look forward to about the inevitable collapse of CIG (other than the knowledge that all those self righteous shills will be crying about their lost cash and the fact that Derek was right) will be hearing the inside story of how it all went wrong and what Chris was really like to work with.
Nobody is going to say Derek was right, they're going to whine that he caused it to fail and he's responsible for them all losing their money.
You have to realise that even worse than being wrong is being publicly embarrassed, most people rationalize their failures into someone else and that someone will surely be Derek. Chris Roberts will probably write another sorry letter quietly encouraging the hate and pointing fingers anywhere except at him.
Post by: N0mad on December 02, 2017, 10:54:29 AM
Post by: dsmart on December 02, 2017, 12:35:04 PM
One of the things I look forward to about the inevitable collapse of CIG (other than the knowledge that all those self righteous shills will be crying about their lost cash and the fact that Derek was right) will be hearing the inside story of how it all went wrong and what Chris was really like to work with.
Nobody is going to say Derek was right, they're going to whine that he caused it to fail and he's responsible for them all losing their money.
You have to realise that even worse than being wrong is being publicly embarrassed, most people rationalize their failures into someone else and that someone will surely be Derek. Chris Roberts will probably write another sorry letter quietly encouraging the hate and pointing fingers anywhere except at him.
Oh they will, and some of them - right now on Reddit - have already started down this path of blaming me and the Goons, instead of Chris Roberts and his henchmen.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 02, 2017, 02:49:27 PM
How can the really believe that a very small minority and one game developer's words destroy a 160 million dollar behemoth? It cannot. CIG, under Chris Robbers rotted from within with a poisonous corporate climate, George Patton management style (without the competency or effectiveness) Bernie Madoff greed (without the ability to maintain the scam), and the general incompetence of the average pre teen who thinks they know much more than the people who actually do but refuses to listen to good counsel.
I too will enjoy seeing this rotten mess collapse. It deserved to fail and it's failure was inevitable. Ending it sooner simply means fewer losses to either existing backers or any future backers who get suckered in by the thousands of slick Star Citizen videos or hundreds of undeservedly positive articles. Even if the game had reached market I doubt that it would find wide acceptance ands draw many additional players. Clearly it would be heavily monetized because of the debt it would have carried as it limped across the finish line. The backers were deluded to believe this game would ever be completed. Robbers acts as if he is surprised at every convention as if he did not know just how poorly his project would play. Either he has tricked himself, or is becoming a half assed actor. I think it's both but the acting has served him well. I hope they slipped up and has broken some laws somewhere and does some prison time for this scam.
Post by: David-2 on December 02, 2017, 05:01:54 PM
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 02, 2017, 05:35:33 PM
Post by: dsmart on December 03, 2017, 08:12:42 AM
Quote
2013 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 10 Days (11-18 through 11-27)
2014 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 11 Days (11-22 through 12-02)
2015 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-20 through 12-01)
2016 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-19 through 11-30)
2017 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 18 Days (11-24 through 12-11)
Post by: StanTheMan on December 03, 2017, 11:41:02 AM
I think if you point a finger at someone you only find 8 pointing back at you. 9 at the most.
because at least 1 in ten have that finger up someones arse instead ?
Post by: Meowz on December 03, 2017, 11:51:39 AM
The last desperate cash grabI don't understand how they were able to raise so much this sale. Considering all their failures YTD, I expected this sale to be the lowest one of all.Quote2013 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 10 Days (11-18 through 11-27)
2014 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 11 Days (11-22 through 12-02)
2015 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-20 through 12-01)
2016 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-19 through 11-30)
2017 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 18 Days (11-24 through 12-11)
Post by: dsmart on December 03, 2017, 12:00:29 PM
The last desperate cash grabI don't understand how they were able to raise so much this sale. Considering all their failures YTD, I expected this sale to be the lowest one of all.Quote2013 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 10 Days (11-18 through 11-27)
2014 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 11 Days (11-22 through 12-02)
2015 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-20 through 12-01)
2016 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-19 through 11-30)
2017 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 18 Days (11-24 through 12-11)
Yes, it's puzzling, but that's the nature of Sunk Cost Fallacy. Backers giving them money are WELL aware that they need the money or the project is dead. However, they can only pull this stunt for so long. This is their most blatant cash grab thus far, and it's very telling.
Anyway, none of this will matter once what is playing out in the background, goes public.
Post by: Motto on December 03, 2017, 01:46:39 PM
Oh, they have transferred all the IP rights to the new shell company and are handing over all other daily operations to a third party. That third party cannot finish SC of course, so they crash. And the new owner not only kills the SC game, but also owes money to Chris for the IP use...
Post by: dsmart on December 04, 2017, 05:59:27 AM
Give us a hint there, be a sport.
Sorry, can't. It's super highly confidential and will cause issues with sources.
Post by: Meowz on December 04, 2017, 08:26:10 PM
Give us a hint there, be a sport.
Sorry, can't. It's super highly confidential and will cause issues with sources.
This is seriously my only gripe with your approach as I've seen you make similar type statements a few times in the past. Please DS, if you can't say it, even a small portion of what you know, just don't mention it period. Eluding that you "know stuff" and leaving it at that does nothing to support your position, or add to you credibility. If anything it can be used against you.
Post by: supuvami on December 05, 2017, 04:49:19 AM
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2017, 06:33:48 AM
Give us a hint there, be a sport.
Sorry, can't. It's super highly confidential and will cause issues with sources.
This is seriously my only gripe with your approach as I've seen you make similar type statements a few times in the past. Please DS, if you can't say it, even a small portion of what you know, just don't mention it period. Eluding that you "know stuff" and leaving it at that does nothing to support your position, or add to you credibility. If anything it can be used against you.
I see how it can be frustrating for people with control issues; but those who have been around since the beginning know that this has always been my approach. And when things end up coming true, I just link back to what I previously stated. It's how I keep track and tie everything together. More importantly, when sources tell me not to say anything, I don't. It's really that simple. And sometimes, even giving a hint can be detrimental.
I don't write anything to "support a position". I just write. What people chose to believe or not, is up to them because 1) I simply don't care what they do with the information, nor now they feel about it 2) I'm not writing for the benefit of gaining an audience; this is just something that I do in my spare time
It has nothing to do with credibility. If anyone who hasn't been paying attention since July 2015 (http://www.dereksmart.org/2015/08/star-citizen-how-i-got-involved/), thinks that my credibility has been tarnished, given where we are now, and all the things I've written - the majority of which have come true - they're fools who probably spend money on JPEGs for a vaporware game.
I don't see how my opinions can be used against me in this regard, or in any feasible fashion. The fact remains, people don't have to read what I write. They have to read my social media feeds and blogs in order to access them. I don't advertise, and I don't have any financial gain from what I write. So, again, I simply don't care what they think. That's on them.
To be clear. The project is finished, the money is all gone, and the end is nigh. That's all there is to it.
When people question my motivation, this is precisely what I tell them. I simply don't care what they think, I'm not in this for the glory, hate, jealousy, to see the project fail, or any of that nonsense. My motivation remains the same, and it hasn't changed since CIG and their Shitizens forced me into this back in July 2015 because I wrote a blog. My primary focus is on vindication and accountability; nothing more, nothing less. And the underlying factor in all of that is that after spending over three decades in this genre and in gaming, the impact from the fallout that will come after the Star Citizen project reaches its final conclusion (which I have reason to believe will be a catastrophic collapse of the project) affects me. And as with everything in gaming, long after the dust settles, there are those who will be trying to serve up their version of what happened, when, where, and how. Even though they have no clue, or have a reason to lie about it. So I write. A lot.
Post by: StanTheMan on December 05, 2017, 06:41:43 AM
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2017, 06:45:39 AM
....and the move towards the emergency exit is well underway..
You read this back when I wrote it, right? Sure you did. Just wait and see what comes next. It's so incredible, that I feel ashamed for being so smug about it.
http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/5610/
http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/5346/
Post by: N0mad on December 05, 2017, 06:58:55 AM
Can you at least tell us how you expect it to be made public when the time comes? Are we looking out for a CIG community announcement / press release / media article / you tube vid / reddit post / blog ?
Post by: Flashwit on December 05, 2017, 09:42:03 AM
Channel the SC fanboys and be infinitely patient :smug:
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2017, 09:54:21 AM
How long till the big news breaks?
Can you at least tell us how you expect it to be made public when the time comes? Are we looking out for a CIG community announcement / press release / media article / you tube vid / reddit post / blog ?
Yeah, that I can do. Two Weeks :laugh: :supaburn: :lol:
Post by: Motto on December 05, 2017, 11:38:00 AM
In the meantime, maybe Derek can write a blog about how to write a blog?
Post by: RGX520Z on December 05, 2017, 12:34:02 PM
Post by: DemonInvestor on December 05, 2017, 12:38:17 PM
Derek really needs to be cautious as false informations and even internal informations (and the identity of leak getting revealed) would most likely lead to unessecary damage.
@derek
Ever thought about giving your predictions/informations to a neutral trustworthy (best case legaly bound) party, to verify that you predicted something/had the informations beforehand ?
Not really asking you to do that, as it would most likely cost something and a lot people might actually question the needed neutrality of such a party.
Post by: N0mad on December 05, 2017, 01:32:59 PM
@derek
Ever thought about giving your predictions/informations to a neutral trustworthy (best case legaly bound) party, to verify that you predicted something/had the informations beforehand ?
Not really asking you to do that, as it would most likely cost something and a lot people might actually question the needed neutrality of such a party.
That would imply that Derek has something to *prove*, he doesn't. It's CIG taking the money, it's CIG who need to come clean about the state of their game.
How long till the big news breaks?
Can you at least tell us how you expect it to be made public when the time comes? Are we looking out for a CIG community announcement / press release / media article / you tube vid / reddit post / blog ?
Yeah, that I can do. Two Weeks :laugh: :supaburn: :lol:
hmmm. Could you be referring to the holiday live stream then? Where CR has declared:
Quote
Squadron 42 will be the focus of our Holiday Livestream in December, where we will preview some gameplay and share our roadmap for its completion
I can't find the exact dates for the livestream though.
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2017, 01:45:02 PM
Derek really needs to be cautious as false informations and even internal informations (and the identity of leak getting revealed) would most likely lead to unessecary damage.
Yup, there's that. Which is why I don't just blurt out everything that comes my way, and the sources I have a solid ones. Even when I get third-party stuff from trusted industry people connected to someone on the project, I still keep it to myself until I can verify it myself directly with my own trusted sources. And if those sources can't confirm it, I never - ever - run with it because I've been burned in the past.
Quote
Ever thought about giving your predictions/informations to a neutral trustworthy (best case legaly bound) party, to verify that you predicted something/had the informations beforehand ?
Not really asking you to do that, as it would most likely cost something and a lot people might actually question the needed neutrality of such a party.
No. Why would I do that? That would imply that I'm in this for "scoops" and "I was right" etc. I'm not in it for that at all, so it doesn't really matter to me who said/wrote it first. e.g. since May sources were telling me that 3.0 was a disaster. I didn't say anything about it. When they told me that the internal dev and public schedules were different, I didn't write about it right away. Then I did - MONTHS ahead. The results? Well, it was all true. Same thing with all my posts about SQ42 not coming in 2015, 2016, 2017 - even when CIG went to the media and told them it was all bollocks, I stood my ground and kept repeating what well placed sources had told me. Then it all became true. Even with the LY engine switch. Anyone can go back to my blogs, as well as my scoop/musings article and see how I methodically track, compile, and record this stuff. There is a pattern and a plan, which I never deviate from.
I think the biggest one to date is the state of 3.0. Even back when I was writing about it in July, I was still thinking that given time, they would actually pull it off, given how important the build was. That's why I was so shocked that they not only released it prematurely to Evocati on Oct 6th, but they followed that up with a release to PTU (for which they are hilariously charging $10!) on Nov 23rd, in the same shitty state. And the fact that they were actively suppressing videos, kicking people off Evocati for leaks etc, just proves the point that they the build was really shit, and they were trying to suppress that - ahead of the anniversary sale.
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2017, 01:47:53 PM
I can't find the exact dates for the livestream though.
They haven't announced it yet, but it's sometime this month - within the next two weeks apparently.
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2017, 01:48:16 PM
Quote
BREAKING!! Several sources have confirmed that 1) CIG is NOT planning to show SQ42 during this month's stream and 2) if they do change this plan, that it will NOT be a live play through, but yet another movie trailer.
Post by: N0mad on December 05, 2017, 02:02:15 PM
BREAKING!! Several sources have confirmed that 1) CIG is NOT planning to show SQ42 during this month's stream and 2) if they do change this plan, that it will NOT be a live play through, but yet another movie trailer.
:supaburn: :supaburn: :supaburn:
Is this part of your super secret news, or is there more to come in 2 weeks ?
Post by: DemonInvestor on December 05, 2017, 02:06:11 PM
Guessed you might have thought about it, because at least some people in the public are saying you might make unspecified statements, just to retroactively fill them with some random bad happening.
So it's not really about scoops or anything, but more about disproving people who claim such.
Funnily enough it wouldn't really matter if you were doing a psychic trick (in making propable unspeficif predictions people might retroactively read as specific) as the propability part is what matters to me of your messages. And so far your predictions seem quite fitting, and the timeframe of when you said something was going to happen was more on point than Roberts predictions upon when SC would hit certain development stages.
Post by: nightfire on December 05, 2017, 03:46:43 PM
Is this part of your super secret news, or is there more to come in 2 weeks ?
Super secret news will be ready when it's ready. I don't mind the wait, because the worst thing that could be released now is a tweet storm that's laggy and doesn't scroll smoothly without major framerate issues or disappearing tweets. I want Derek to have as much time as he needs to polish this update.
Post by: Motto on December 05, 2017, 04:01:52 PM
Oh, and he's having a very limited edition sale of his famous July Blog! Printed, Signed and Mailed to you. Now remember, he will be selling as much of them as he can print and sign, but the moments he will actually sell them will be limited!
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2017, 04:49:30 PM
@Derek
Guessed you might have thought about it, because at least some people in the public are saying you might make unspecified statements, just to retroactively fill them with some random bad happening.
So it's not really about scoops or anything, but more about disproving people who claim such.
Funnily enough it wouldn't really matter if you were doing a psychic trick (in making propable unspeficif predictions people might retroactively read as specific) as the propability part is what matters to me of your messages. And so far your predictions seem quite fitting, and the timeframe of when you said something was going to happen was more on point than Roberts predictions upon when SC would hit certain development stages.
Yeah, that's the beauty if it. It angers and annoys those guys. And it keeps them guessing. Just the way I like it. :smuggo:
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2017, 04:50:02 PM
Is this part of your super secret news, or is there more to come in 2 weeks ?
Super secret news will be ready when it's ready. I don't mind the wait, because the worst thing that could be released now is a tweet storm that's laggy and doesn't scroll smoothly without major framerate issues or disappearing tweets. I want Derek to have as much time as he needs to polish this update.
:lol:
:five: :five: :five:
Post by: dsmart on December 06, 2017, 07:29:47 AM
"Squadron 42 will be the focus of our Holiday Livestream in December, where we will preview some gameplay and share our roadmap for its completion."
From the Oct 13, 2017 newsletter (http://mailchi.mp/cloudimperiumgames/meet-the-defender-of-the-banu-140549)
Post by: Motto on December 06, 2017, 07:37:44 AM
Post by: N0mad on December 06, 2017, 07:47:37 AM
Quote
Squadron 42 won't be shown in this year's livestream, it's nearly ready, but there were a few last minute issues so it's better to delay showing everything until it's perfect. But since it's really very nearly ready we'll show it to you soon in a few months. Answer the Call 2018 folks. Maybe at the next holiday livestream. In 2019
Post by: StanTheMan on December 06, 2017, 08:06:27 AM
I can't wait for the excuses:QuoteSquadron 42 won't be shown in this year's livestream, it's nearly ready, but there were a few last minute issues so it's better to delay showing everything until it's perfect. But since it's really very nearly ready we'll show it to you soon in a few months. Answer the Call 2018 folks. Maybe at the next holiday livestream. In 2019
Surely they have at least some Mocap and voice acting from the Stars he forked out for ...obviously not SQ42 but might just keep a few more people happy for a while.....
Post by: dsmart on December 06, 2017, 08:32:09 AM
Just putting this here so we can refer/track it later
"Squadron 42 will be the focus of our Holiday Livestream in December, where we will preview some gameplay and share our roadmap for its completion."
From the Oct 13, 2017 newsletter (http://mailchi.mp/cloudimperiumgames/meet-the-defender-of-the-banu-140549)
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/938147860788535296
Quote
BREAKING!! Several sources have confirmed that 1) CIG is NOT planning to show SQ42 during this month's stream and 2) if they do change this plan, that it will NOT be a live play through, but yet another movie trailer.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 06, 2017, 09:16:35 PM
I can't wait for the excuses:QuoteSquadron 42 won't be shown in this year's livestream, it's nearly ready, but there were a few last minute issues so it's better to delay showing everything until it's perfect. But since it's really very nearly ready we'll show it to you soon in a few months. Answer the Call 2018 folks. Maybe at the next holiday livestream. In 2019
Surely they have at least some Mocap and voice acting from the Stars he forked out for ...obviously not SQ42 but might just keep a few more people happy for a while.....
Allright, Though the faithful will always deny that CIG is running a hand to mouth operation and has been for most of this year with no change in sight. They need money desperately and the only way to get backers (who have spent and spent) on this Demo Project is to give them something to fixate upon.
They showed some "gameplay" this summer at gamescom although it was very limited, very buggy it was enough to get the suckers to open their wallets AGAIN. They need the money again
IF Squadron 42 was REALLY close to completion as they say they ought to have polished playable missions ready to awe their prospective audience. If Roberts is expecting the release to provide funding (as he said in previous interviews) he ought to be priming the pump and get new players interested with a gameplay preview. This is common sense. He ought to be giving Demo games with one mission out to the gaming community to show them how wonderful the game is. Most games work like this. I can get 10 hour demos on Origin. Now we see that there will be no gameplay, No demos and at best another Chris Roberts short video that may have nothing to do with gameplay (probably more motion capture scenes with Brilliant Chris Roberts plot and dialogue and a few ships from Star Citizen stuck in to give the appearance of a game).
I put it to you that they have no gameplay to show. They may have created a film based on assets from the current build weaved together with some of the Mocap he has sitting in the can but there IS NO GAME. Once again it's more smoke and mirrors for the suckers to open their wallets. Do I care? No. The more they spend the worse it will be in the end and since I hate that community's members its all sauce for the goose.
The only thing better than seeing a $168 Million dollar failure is a $200 Million dollar failure. With sums like that what possible excuse can he give?
I know that he will always have excuses but it does not matter because this will always be a bugfest regardless of how much backers give him, why? HE IS INCOMPETENT. Please, keep feeding the dumpster fire, we need laws written to protect people from predators like Roberts and this can only happen with a record setting failure.
Chris Roberts, the Bernie Madoff of Gaming and Film. CIG, the Enron of gaming.
Post by: N0mad on December 07, 2017, 12:55:09 AM
Post by: Motto on December 07, 2017, 01:02:35 AM
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 07, 2017, 02:14:57 AM
First we need to help "Bring down the Sky. if anybody remembers that obscure reference from another extremely popular Sci Fi rpg. It is what I am doing at the moment. I never played it on a PC, the port is not fantastic. It runs smoother on a console. One of my favorites.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 07, 2017, 02:49:39 AM
And when the collapse does come, the SC sub Reddit will be full of whales complaining that they never expected this to happen and crying about how much money they lost. And halfway down the comment section, amid the salt and anguish, will be the lone Joe Blobers Alt calmly and smugly telling them: They just don't understand game development.
And this would be glorious! I bet they would still have a tight reign on Goons preventing us from teasing them. I know I can't post anything on any of their subreddits. They don't want to hear anything but their own bullshit. If they are so secure in their beliefs in that Star Citizen will be completed and be great why do they feel the need to lock out any dissent? They sound very insecure. They really have good reason to be. While many put on a brave face I bet many are shitting their pants. They were hoping to see something much better. Now that the truth is pissing down their backs they know that it is unlikely that any quick fix is coming. The path towards completion will be much longer than they truly anticipated. They are so involved that they cannot possibly see living without this project in their lives.
It is probably becoming very difficult to get new backers since most of the potential backers have either sworn SC off after learning about it or have already gotten refunds. The pool of possible backers was never very large but the shenanigans surrounding this project has poisoned the waters. I bet they are hoping that the middle aged men who live under a rock would give it a spin as they have some fun money and time on their hands at night. I am not sure how many non gamer middle aged men would pony up $65 on a whim. Roberts probably has done the market research and can see the noose tightening hence the land sales scheme.
We are going to help this mess to collapse. It's like the old El Producto commercials I used to see during the Wide Wide World of Sports with Howard Cosell "Were gonna get ya, You know were gonna getcha". (Now I dated myself.)
Off the subject, boy it seems that players have to spend an awful lot of time flipping through menus on that wrist thingy. So many more menus and things to deal with, not fun, simply more work. It's not bad enough that many people have to use their smart phone all day long, now they have a game and instead of enjoying some escapism they have to deal with a wrist mounted smart phone with tons of menus to manage. Sadly these players still need to go to a console to call down a ship. In current times you can use your phone to have a supermarket do your shopping for you but in Robbersworld people have to go to a kiosk to get their ships. More proof that this guy has no vision, he just steals what he likes from other franchises yet leaves common sense at the door. Couldn't you just have cargo loaded, have the ship fuelled and delivered to a gate of your choosing? Makes sense to me. Just another example of how the Robbers dictatorship fails the backers.
Post by: dsmart on December 07, 2017, 03:23:50 AM
Post by: Greggy_D on December 07, 2017, 08:33:29 AM
I put it to you that they have no gameplay to show.
It's because all of the basic, foundational mechanics are horribly broken.
Post by: N0mad on December 07, 2017, 09:48:18 AM
I put it to you that they have no gameplay to show.
It's because all of the basic, foundational mechanics are horribly broken.
After the inevitable collapse, this is one area where a lot of analysis will take place (also the management style / financials / marketing strategy / lack of experience etc). Derek will know all about this, and there are plenty of good GDC talks about this on Youtube. A game needs to nail down their core gameplay loops early on and make it really fun and appealing. For FPS shooters this would be running / jumping / aiming / shooting, for a space game it would be flying, manoeuvring, aiming, shooting etc. Beyond that there are further loops for missions / progression etc. The core loop, the thing the player will be doing repetitively has to feel good and fun. The problem is that SC never really looked at the game this way. What is the core gameplay for the game? is it a first person shooter, if so where is this aspect in 3.0? is it a space shooter? but the ship flight mechanics look dreadful and shooting an enemy ship the size of a few pixels worked in the 90s but does it still work now? Besides, CR has at various stages indicated that it could be: a space sim / FPS / survival game / trading game / MMO / car racer etc. Basically all the genres at once. At no stage do they seem to have sat down and say - let's try and concentrate on just one gameplay loop and make it really fun.
Post by: DemonInvestor on December 08, 2017, 04:02:36 PM
I put it to you that they have no gameplay to show.
It's because all of the basic, foundational mechanics are horribly broken.
After the inevitable collapse, this is one area where a lot of analysis will take place (also the management style / financials / marketing strategy / lack of experience etc). Derek will know all about this, and there are plenty of good GDC talks about this on Youtube. A game needs to nail down their core gameplay loops early on and make it really fun and appealing. For FPS shooters this would be running / jumping / aiming / shooting, for a space game it would be flying, manoeuvring, aiming, shooting etc. Beyond that there are further loops for missions / progression etc. The core loop, the thing the player will be doing repetitively has to feel good and fun. The problem is that SC never really looked at the game this way. What is the core gameplay for the game? is it a first person shooter, if so where is this aspect in 3.0? is it a space shooter? but the ship flight mechanics look dreadful and shooting an enemy ship the size of a few pixels worked in the 90s but does it still work now? Besides, CR has at various stages indicated that it could be: a space sim / FPS / survival game / trading game / MMO / car racer etc. Basically all the genres at once. At no stage do they seem to have sat down and say - let's try and concentrate on just one gameplay loop and make it really fun.
Fun isn't a good metric if you can't define your target audience and what game you actually want to make - or if you goal might actually being doing a wholesome space life simulation.
So while your most likely right for real game projects - Roberts doesn't seems to be bothered by wanting to develop something as trivial as a game. I mean he comes across as the guy who would have tried to implement MS Flight simulator aevionic systems into Battlefield 1942.
Post by: krylite on December 08, 2017, 04:51:56 PM
More proof that this guy has no vision, he just steals what he likes from other franchises yet leaves common sense at the door. Couldn't you just have cargo loaded, have the ship fuelled and delivered to a gate of your choosing? Makes sense to me. Just another example of how the Robbers dictatorship fails the backers.
Fun isn't a good metric if you can't define your target audience and what game you actually want to make - or if you goal might actually being doing a wholesome space life simulation.
So while your most likely right for real game projects - Roberts doesn't seems to be bothered by wanting to develop something as trivial as a game. I mean he comes across as the guy who would have tried to implement MS Flight simulator avionic systems into Battlefield 1942.
Agreed. RSI had their chance to make some workable game i.e. "squadron 42" for $20 million or so. cr doesn't seem to know what he's doing and seems to be trying to reinvent so many wheels at once, ripping off anything in the recent media and even ED when they get a new feature upgrade working. Inadvertent ponzi's usually start out with good intentions , but then gets duplicitous when major mistakes are made and instead of responsible oversight and action to pull the brakes, in SC's case, awful decisions are made to sweep the mistakes under the rug and then to double down on feature creep and bloated marketing just making the ponzi all the more lumbering and precarious in the end.
Post by: dsmart on December 11, 2017, 06:06:22 AM
It clearly shows - yet another example of why this project is FUBAR.
I am writing an article right now about it. For the record, and in case there was ANY doubt, I called it already (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/5949/).
(https://imgur.com/lqapMqC.png)
Meanwhile over at the water cooler (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/7iz016/cig_lead_network_programmer_netcode_does_not_make/?st=jb27nedu&sh=eb6f470c) and where no cultists are allowed (https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/7j1khb/star_citizen_developer_says_the_engine_is_not/?st=jb27e1i7&sh=31a21cc3)
Post by: Motto on December 11, 2017, 07:00:31 AM
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2z6dteh.jpg)
Probably will get deleted anyways...
Post by: dsmart on December 11, 2017, 07:09:26 AM
Post by: Motto on December 11, 2017, 07:23:30 AM
It's a comment at the bottom in what's the top comment for now.
Post by: Motto on December 11, 2017, 04:33:47 PM
This should be higher up :D
Post by: justme on December 12, 2017, 01:51:03 AM
Never Ending Story :toot:
Post by: nightfire on December 12, 2017, 04:40:54 AM
Ha, somebody agreed :D
This should be higher up :D
Proves that at least a few sane people still check into that subreddit from time to time :D
Post by: lurker_404 on December 12, 2017, 05:31:53 AM
Post by: nightfire on December 12, 2017, 05:43:45 AM
Did Clive Johnson just said "We have the wrong engine for SC" ? Am I right?No. He basically just said "we're trying to do things nobody has ever done before". Which more or less amounts to the same thing
Post by: dsmart on December 12, 2017, 06:44:17 AM
Did Clive Johnson just said "We have the wrong engine for SC" ? Am I right?
It depends on the interpretation; but that's how I read it. Claiming that the engine is being pushed to do something it wasn't designed to do, is the closest he came to admitting that.
Post by: N0mad on December 12, 2017, 10:43:19 AM
That said, Clive makes some very contradictory statements. Firstly saying the Netcode doesn't impact FPS and performace, but then saying that fresh servers and offline games have better performance because they have fewer players.
I think it all depends on how you define Netcode, which as Derek says, is a very non specific term. Clive may be referring solely to the mechanism by which data gets serialized and transmitted between the client and the server, perhaps also relating to how that data gets dealt with in the core code at either end. What this doesn't address, of course, is HOW much data is being transmitted, which as we know is an excessive amount and base Cryengine is extremely poorly optimized in this regard. Clive's sole responsibility may be the code which deals with the data flow, and, as he points out, this isn't the problem. When he goes on to talk about fundamentally changing systems in the engine in his last paragraph, he may well be referring to the entire multiplayer system in Cryengine and how every single asset in the game handles multiplayer, including physics updates etc. Which kind of suggests that they haven't even been looking at the multiplayer code in Cryengine (it may be outside his remit anyway).
Anyway, this was my take on the post. I'd love to hear back from any network programmers out there !
Post by: Scruffpuff on December 12, 2017, 01:32:11 PM
Regarding Clive Johnson's post about the netcode, I thought I'd throw my opinion out there. I know very little about networking so pay more attention to Derek's excellent blog on this than me.
That said, Clive makes some very contradictory statements. Firstly saying the Netcode doesn't impact FPS and performace, but then saying that fresh servers and offline games have better performance because they have fewer players.
I think it all depends on how you define Netcode, which as Derek says, is a very non specific term. Clive may be referring solely to the mechanism by which data gets serialized and transmitted between the client and the server, perhaps also relating to how that data gets dealt with in the core code at either end. What this doesn't address, of course, is HOW much data is being transmitted, which as we know is an excessive amount and base Cryengine is extremely poorly optimized in this regard. Clive's sole responsibility may be the code which deals with the data flow, and, as he points out, this isn't the problem. When he goes on to talk about fundamentally changing systems in the engine in his last paragraph, he may well be referring to the entire multiplayer system in Cryengine and how every single asset in the game handles multiplayer, including physics updates etc. Which kind of suggests that they haven't even been looking at the multiplayer code in Cryengine (it may be outside his remit anyway).
Anyway, this was my take on the post. I'd love to hear back from any network programmers out there !
Although the technology can be complicated to implement and requires experience and expertise, the basic concept of optimization with relation to network communication is in fact quite simple, and easily alluded to through the following shorthand: What is the least information I can provide that will still get across the important data?
Consider a game of Battleship. You have a carrier, which takes up 5 slots in a row, in positions E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6. What is the least amount of information to allow someone who does not see your board to replicate your ship's position? You could give the ship type along with 5 coordinates. You could cut that down by more than half by just sending the ship type, E2, and E6, because that confers enough data to fill in the blanks. You could just give E2 and E6 and skip the ship type, since there is only one ship that takes up 5 spaces, slimming down the transmitted data even more.
Network communication in gaming is the same kind of thing. You have to plan for it from the very beginning to make significant gains in efficiency. A good example of that is my reference above - since both clients know the carrier is the only ship that takes up 5 spaces, then it becomes valid communication to simply transmit the two endpoint coordinates. If the clients don't understand this rule, you would have to send the extra data (the ship type.)
This is where Chris Roberts obsession with his rendition of "fidelity" dooms him. Take World of Warcraft for an example. If two players are playing together and kill a crocolisk, the only data sent to each client is that there is a dead crocolisk there. That's it - a number in a database representing a dead crocolisk. (Let's keep the "lootable" aspect out for this example.) Now it's the client's job to decide which of several dead crocolisk art pieces to render on the screen. Maybe it's a red one dead on its stomach. Maybe it's an albino one flipped onto its back. Maybe one's facing north and the other east - decided on by the client. It doesn't matter, it's not important, just send the minimum data to get the point across.
This is not good enough for Chris. In his mind, The Matrix was not a movie but a documentary, and everything seen by one client must be seen, identically, by every client at exactly the same time. Each raindrop must be individually rendered, not just a "rain" event, and each raindrop's position sent over the network in real time. Each laser blast, each eye blink of your commando, each ripple of your many jackets as you stride into a malfunctioning airlock, it ALL must be broadcast back and forth in huge networking datasets so that everyone sees the same thing.
That approach would fail in a single-player client-server game. Attempting to do it in an MMO? Insanity.
Post by: nightfire on December 12, 2017, 02:49:18 PM
Each raindrop must be individually rendered, not just a "rain" event, and each raindrop's position sent over the network in real time.
See? He's doing everything right like you proposed in your Battleship example – he's just sending the raindrop's position.
Someone who didn't understand game development would send the size, 3d volume geometry (influenced by air resistance), and dust particle contamination (which determines reflective and translucent properties) of that particular raindrop over the network as well. Chris doesn't do that; he just sends the position of each drop. How efficient is that!
That's because Chris and his team understand Serialized Raindrops, Raindrop Culling and Water 2.0 to make this miracle of a game work with rainfall fidelity never seen in a game before.
Post by: Scruffpuff on December 12, 2017, 07:14:37 PM
Each raindrop must be individually rendered, not just a "rain" event, and each raindrop's position sent over the network in real time.
See? He's doing everything right like you proposed in your Battleship example – he's just sending the raindrop's position.
Someone who didn't understand game development would send the size, 3d volume geometry (influenced by air resistance), and dust particle contamination (which determines reflective and translucent properties) of that particular raindrop over the network as well. Chris doesn't do that; he just sends the position of each drop. How efficient is that!
That's because Chris and his team understand Serialized Raindrops, Raindrop Culling and Water 2.0 to make this miracle of a game work with rainfall fidelity never seen in a game before.
You're right! And once he leverages the power in the machines, there's no limit to what else he can serialize.
Post by: StanTheMan on December 12, 2017, 08:20:46 PM
Quote
there's no limit to what else he can serialize.
We will be getting a Star Citizen promotion on the back of Kellogg's boxes next.
Post by: dsmart on December 13, 2017, 06:21:26 AM
Each raindrop must be individually rendered, not just a "rain" event, and each raindrop's position sent over the network in real time.
See? He's doing everything right like you proposed in your Battleship example – he's just sending the raindrop's position.
That Battleship example is an excellent one. The hilarious part of that is when you compare a game like to one like Star Citizen the problem increases exponentially.
The other part of this is that, as I wrote in my latest article, for the longest time, they have been using these buzz terms in order to make excuses for the shitty networking layer. I wrote - many times - that those sort of things are part of most (if not all) networking engines but that at the end of the day, it's not going to make much difference - and that they're never going to get an MMO anyway.
Designing a networking layer for an MMO takes a LOT of work, and even when you use third-party engines (I have used ReplicaNet and RakNet in my multiplayer games) to do all the heavy lifting (much like how you would use middleware for audio, graphics, AI, UI etc), your game design and code still needs to be robust enough because at the end of the day, you have to massage your data to make the most efficient use of the networking middleware. If like Star Citizen you're sending in excess of 4K data packets from each client, with the server doing upwards of 170K, no middleware is going to help you.
So in their case, network culling, serialized variables etc, aren't going to solve the problem to any large extent. In fact, from what I have seen of their transmission packets, I would bet that they're probably going to get 1 maybe 2 additional clients worth of performance. Yes, it's that bad.
In case you missed it, this is what I wrote (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/5263/) back in May
As I've written before, our networking engine (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-many-players-are-supported/) for Line Of Defense which uses RakNet, took us the better part of 2 years to do. And it was designed from the ground up to support either a standard session based game, or an MMO. Why? Because I wasn't sure that by the time the game was finished, that MMOs were still going to be a trend or worth the on-going costs and hassles. So I planned ahead. Especially due to the fact that we also needed support for consoles for which doing an MMO was never in the plan. Basically, what they are trying to do at the point in the game's development, is the worse thing possible. And that's why they are never going to get a reasonable experience out of it.
Post by: dsmart on December 13, 2017, 07:15:41 AM
Post by: the_wolfmann on December 13, 2017, 07:22:00 AM
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT NEWS STAY TUNED
:f5:
Post by: justme on December 13, 2017, 07:33:04 AM
the latest shows, relating data optimization always showed us ways, to reduce the information for clients,
but only by cutting of the parts, far away.
of course i don't need to know, if somebody takes out landing gear, during my shopping tour at levski.
but what about these things, important for a mmo? i mean, that thing should be a mmo, not a single player.
i want to play with friends, flying with multi crew ships and doing stuff. so what about optimization of information
from my party members. no words, yet.
and if we are looking at the possibilities with all theses ships, very specialized, there will not be THAT ship you need,
you always would need some more ships as a fleet.
take the polaris as example. at the moment it needs a crew of 14 players. but you need some support ships. so at the
end, you will need about 20 players minimum in a very short range. all these players won't just fly from a to b. they wanna
do a mission, with even more players or more npc. and they will use turrets, missles and torpedos. so many many more information
for all these players in a small area.
i did not heard anything, how they wanna handle this.
but what i hear are visions of hugh fleets with hundreds of ships.
this is just a technical thing. i really think, with the right people you can handle that. i don't know, i hope.
but technical problems will always be solved one day.
but there are more concerns, nobody really speaks about.
everything should be hugh and massive. 90% npc, gigantic systems, whatever.
just believe one moment, that they build the perfect game,
like every backer always wanted.
what about the player base?
the conversative mmo players stagnate. even the big games have to handle with
less and less players. these mobas needed to be hidden in these speculations...
why should there be such a hugh amount of players for a space sim mmo?
i played some mmo, all the famous ones. even there, with many willing players,
it was hard to get 16people motivated to join the game at a special time for a specific task.
raids with more players needed, was a hugh amount of work to get them coordinated. it took
weeks to find 50+ players.
and the most are just not willing to bind there freetime for other players.
these days from vanilla wow are over.
yes there are organizations in the game with thousands of players, all around the world.
but do they really think, that everybody from europe will take part in the US peaks?
and even the players from one country combined to one single organization will have problems,
to finde enough willing and skilled players to do that specific missions, maybe offered one day.
so it is totally wrong to take that as reference not to build a game,
but you should ask yourself, what the consequenses would be and how
to counteract this in a smart way.
at the end i'm lucky if we can reach 4million players around the globe, playing a finished mmo.
but this would mean about 500-1000 players in a timezone. and now devide that number to all
the systems we expect. so the verse should be pretty empty.
but hey. they first need to publish a stable build. just one worked fine for me,
all the other... let us talk about another topic.
Post by: Bubba on December 13, 2017, 07:33:40 AM
In particular, by descending into Clive's post in detail (task two), the major point got a little muffled: the fact that, in fact, Clive's post is truthful. This isn't where the problem lies, nor are they going to get earth-shattering improvements here. Netcode works as planned and isn't holding anything up at the moment (sure, you can call it crappy and lousy and all you want, and you may be right, but even if it were the best in the world, it wouldn't matter). Rather, the problem is that, for so long, RSI has been making netcode the bad guy rather than incorporating multiplayer constraints as something to be incorporated into development and budgeted for (task one).
So the gamer thinks "it's buggy netcode", whereas we look at it and say, "you can't just drop something that looks really good as a single-player simulation and expect it to run across a thousand partially-synchronized clients. Hell, you can't even expect it to run with 16 players."
Take the Battleship example and throw it out. The design question isn't "I have this game -- how do I transmit the information most efficiently?" but rather, "I have these constraints: client performance, network performance, talent, capital. How do I build the BDSSE?"
In the case at hand, the main question seems to have been: "How do I shape development to generate the most revenue?"
The Australian article is spot on. Meta is the best this game will ever get.
Oh, your third point was to say to the developers suffering in a situation worse than deserved: "This is how you should redesign your game, which you'll never get to do, because you're all going under quickly." That's going all Tokyo Rose on the poor bastards. The only way you coulda made it worse was by asking who was watching their spouses while they wasted their most productive and healthy years crunching away at the office.
Post by: Kyrt on December 13, 2017, 07:54:24 AM
In particular, by descending into Clive's post in detail (task two), the major point got a little muffled: the fact that, in fact, Clive's post is truthful. This isn't where the problem lies, nor are they going to get earth-shattering improvements here. Netcode works as planned and isn't holding anything up at the moment (sure, you can call it crappy and lousy and all you want, and you may be right, but even if it were the best in the world, it wouldn't matter).
Well....as I understand Clive Johnsons point, he is saying that the netcode isn't at fault, but the reason the game has performance issues is because the client is being overloaded with data from 39 other players.
One question that would pop into my head at this point is why each client is dealing with the data from 39 other players.
This, I think, is why so many people were blaming the netcode. It is easy to point to an aspect such as culling and say performance is suffering because the client is getting too much needless data...that there is no prioritisation going on
And...to a degree...this would be correct. But I doubt the answers to the performance issues are that simple. Data culling would remove needless data from the system but it could still cause problems when you get 40 players in the same area.
Post by: dsmart on December 13, 2017, 08:00:59 AM
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT NEWS STAY TUNED
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/940959144219152384
Quote
Star Citizen backers now have a choice to make. 1) Dig deep & continue to fund a failed venture 2) ask questions about the money or 3) pull out and get a refund.
What choice will you make?
It's here. It's bad. And it's only going to get worse.
Stay tuned.
Post by: dsmart on December 13, 2017, 08:04:55 AM
In particular, by descending into Clive's post in detail (task two), the major point got a little muffled: the fact that, in fact, Clive's post is truthful. This isn't where the problem lies, nor are they going to get earth-shattering improvements here. Netcode works as planned and isn't holding anything up at the moment (sure, you can call it crappy and lousy and all you want, and you may be right, but even if it were the best in the world, it wouldn't matter).
Well....as I understand Clive Johnsons point, he is saying that the netcode isn't at fault, but the reason the game has performance issues is because the client is being overloaded with data from 39 other players.
One question that would pop into my head at this point is why each client is dealing with the data from 39 other players.
This, I think, is why so many people were blaming the netcode. It is easy to point to an aspect such as culling and say performance is suffering because the client is getting too much needless data...that there is no prioritisation going on
And...to a degree...this would be correct. But I doubt the answers to the performance issues are that simple. Data culling would remove needless data from the system but it could still cause problems when you get 40 players in the same area.
Precisely. And so far, the majority of people are saying that this was my most clear and understandable blog article yet.
I separated Clive's comments into parts, and broke it down into layman terms for easy consumption because most gamers (esp the Star Citizen backer target) won't understand any of it otherwise.
Post by: Motto on December 13, 2017, 08:05:20 AM
Post by: Flashwit on December 13, 2017, 10:02:17 AM
Post by: dsmart on December 13, 2017, 10:05:25 AM
Star Citizen backers now have a choice to make. 1) Dig deep & continue to fund a failed venture 2) ask questions about the money or 3) pull out and get a refund.
What choice will you make?
It's here. It's bad. And it's only going to get worse.
Stay tuned.
CryTek has followed through on its threat to sue RSI/CIG for a litany of things, and have hired one of the best law firms in the US (https://www.forbes.com/2009/01/23/skadden-merger-takeover-business-cx_df_0123skadden.html#723cde4b7f09). The suit is led by this guy (https://www.skadden.com/professionals/m/minnick-kevin-j).
The lawsuit is currently up on PACER (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al), but doesn't show as being served yet. They are claiming, among other things, IP infringement, breach of contract, and royalties (on the $170m raised) due to them.
I am currently working through an article about it which will provide more details from the filing. It's as serious as can be, as they are alleging they switched engines to avoid paying them.
Developing story. Stay tuned.
Post by: dsmart on December 13, 2017, 10:50:15 AM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/940988268572807168
Star Citizen backers now have a choice to make. 1) Dig deep & continue to fund a failed venture 2) ask questions about the money or 3) pull out and get a refund.
What choice will you make?
It's here. It's bad. And it's only going to get worse.
Stay tuned.
CryTek has followed through on its threat to sue RSI/CIG for a litany of things, and have hired one of the best law firms in the US (https://www.forbes.com/2009/01/23/skadden-merger-takeover-business-cx_df_0123skadden.html#723cde4b7f09). The suit is led by this guy (https://www.skadden.com/professionals/m/minnick-kevin-j).
The lawsuit is currently up on PACER (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al), but doesn't show as being served yet. They are claiming, among other things, IP infringement, breach of contract, and royalties (on the $170m raised) due to them.
I am currently working through an article about it which will provide more details from the filing. It's as serious as can be, as they are alleging they switched engines to avoid paying them.
Developing story. Stay tuned.
The lawsuit is online
https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG
Post by: Greggy_D on December 13, 2017, 11:46:06 AM
Post by: AncoGaming on December 13, 2017, 12:07:33 PM
I've been saying 'don't fuck with the Germans' for years now and that's exactly my point.
CIG are also being sued at the European court right now because their useless customer service thought they can tell a (German) guy waiting for 24000$ that they find it unnecessary to further escalate things... LOL...
They also thought, apparently, let's just build a studio at Frankfurt without asking anyone, almost in walking distance from CryTek, sack all their good employees and live happily ever after. Not only will the case which CryTek have been preparing for more than a year now absolutely D E S T R O Y CIG, it will force them to show where the hell 173 million $ went, where it came from, and I mean exactly, every cent of it, those attorneys will follow every single transaction and receipt no matter how long it takes them.
Once those dudes let go off Roberts, he will never ever even think of making a game again, that's for sure, and soon you can buy the designer handbag of his wife from eBay for 30$, signed with kisses.
Post by: Motto on December 13, 2017, 12:23:06 PM
Post by: dsmart on December 13, 2017, 12:30:18 PM
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/940947796794003457
Post by: Kyrt on December 13, 2017, 01:06:12 PM
Being sued by Crytek eh? I thought they bought complete access to the engine source and could do whatever they wanted to with it?
Part of the deal they made was to
1: Keep the source code private and not share it.
They shared it with third parties and displayed it to the public during their regularly scheduled broadcatss sucjh as BugSmashers
2: They were only supposed to use it for one game - Star Citizen
They are using it for two - Star Citizen and S42. It doesn't matter that they sued to be one.
3: They were supposed to promote the CryTek brand and protect its copyrights
CIG removed copyright notices and CryTek branding and changed the name of CryEngine to StarEngine. Doesn't matter how much of it is changed since legally it is still a variant of CryEngine
4: They were obligated to make use of only CryEngine
CIG have made a big deal of their switch to Lumberyard.
They bought the use of CE at a discount in exchange for promotion, and had the right to modify it to suit their game. If the GLA says what CT says its says, CIG appear to have no legs to stand on. One must always be wary of how the courts will rule, especially when we have incomplete information and only one side of the story (so far) but...it doesn't look good.
CIG could conceivably lose the right to use CryEngine and they may still be legally unable to use Lumberyard. Or maybe even any other engine.
Post by: Kyrt on December 13, 2017, 01:06:49 PM
The lawsuit is online
https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG
Is this what your two week countdown was referring to?
Post by: Motto on December 13, 2017, 01:16:30 PM
Doesn't really help him though. Admitting nothing done on SQ42 will get him killed by the last remaining backers. And since Sandi was VP of Marketing, dumping all assets and money on her and then divorcing her won't help either.
I'm guessing al lot of big industry names are at least smiling now, if not laughing out loud.
Post by: Greggy_D on December 13, 2017, 01:18:07 PM
Post by: Motto on December 13, 2017, 01:19:42 PM
Post by: N0mad on December 13, 2017, 01:29:04 PM
It's the worst possible scenario for CIG, this isn't some inconsequential 3rd party developer suing them for some cash. This is CryTek their original partner and engine maker. This is bad PR on an exponentially worse scale than the land sale fiasco. It's gone viral on Reddit and now several game media sites are running the story - that's just within a few hours of Derek's first tweet. As Derek has (also) tweeted, if CIG could have thrown money at the problem to keep it quiet the they would have done so before now - they can't. Nobody is going to buy a JPEG while this is going on. This is a full on run-and-get-a-refund Extinction Level Event. :supaburn:
Post by: Greggy_D on December 13, 2017, 01:32:10 PM
Post by: Bubba on December 13, 2017, 01:53:09 PM
And incidentally, about Clive's post, I guess my misunderstand is more that I disagree with your assessment, Derek. In the quote, Clive blames Animations, FLCS (or whatever pseudo-avionics they use), Models and something like "Entity Updates" for the problems. The most charitable way to interpret that is him saying it's not bad netcode, it's the fact that nothing in the game was ever budgeted for multiplayer.
So if you take him at his word, even if he is wrong, things are worse: it isn't something as simple as bad net transport. It's something as simple as those in power over this thing did not deem multiplayer important enough to give it a role in design decisions, and as a result, the game and engine explode in multiplayer situations, and it's not something that cleaning up the crappy netcode will fix.
Post by: Kyrt on December 13, 2017, 02:15:13 PM
And incidentally, about Clive's post, I guess my misunderstand is more that I disagree with your assessment, Derek. In the quote, Clive blames Animations, FLCS (or whatever pseudo-avionics they use), Models and something like "Entity Updates" for the problems. The most charitable way to interpret that is him saying it's not bad netcode, it's the fact that nothing in the game was ever budgeted for multiplayer.
So if you take him at his word, even if he is wrong, things are worse: it isn't something as simple as bad net transport. It's something as simple as those in power over this thing did not deem multiplayer important enough to give it a role in design decisions, and as a result, the game and engine explode in multiplayer situations, and it's not something that cleaning up the crappy netcode will fix.
Essentially.
CE itself was optimised around multiplayer FPS style games. That basis ensures there are going to be certain assumptions embedded into the core of the engine that are going to be next to impossible to get rid of. But that also limits what CIG can do to translate the game into an MMO environment.
Put another way, the netcode is working fine.
But - as Clive said - the engine is being asked to stuff it was never designed for. And as a result, everything is blocking everything else. Even if/when they get the netcode up to speed and viable for an MMO, because the core structure of the engine was designed for multiplayer, there are still going to be roadblocks and aspects which reduce performance and efficiency.
It could be possible to design a way around those limitations, but then the problem becomes a question of if CIG have the money and time to do so. Technically, one could posit that appropriate use of server meshing and data culling and smart design and the like could see the gameworld reduced to a huge number of 32 player server meshed zones so you could get instances with multi thousands of players, but a system like that introduces its own set of nightmares
The key point to drag away from all of this is that you can essentially do anything at all with any engine, given enough time and money to modify it, but that doesn't mean an engine is going to be suitable. CE likely would have worked for the Infinite Warfare style game Chris Roberts was pushing. But for an MMO? It lacked the netcode, the AI engine, the physics engine, the rendering engine, the server backend and integration, planet/city and instance generation, and more.
The engine COULD have been adapted, given time and money but it would be easier, cheaper and quicker to switch to an MMO engine or develop their own. That CIG then spent so much time, effort and money working on game assets and ships instead of developing the engine simply made the problems worse
Post by: dsmart on December 13, 2017, 03:10:21 PM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/940988268572807168
Star Citizen backers now have a choice to make. 1) Dig deep & continue to fund a failed venture 2) ask questions about the money or 3) pull out and get a refund.
What choice will you make?
It's here. It's bad. And it's only going to get worse.
Stay tuned.
CryTek has followed through on its threat to sue RSI/CIG for a litany of things, and have hired one of the best law firms in the US (https://www.forbes.com/2009/01/23/skadden-merger-takeover-business-cx_df_0123skadden.html#723cde4b7f09). The suit is led by this guy (https://www.skadden.com/professionals/m/minnick-kevin-j).
The lawsuit is currently up on PACER (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al), but doesn't show as being served yet. They are claiming, among other things, IP infringement, breach of contract, and royalties (on the $170m raised) due to them.
I am currently working through an article about it which will provide more details from the filing. It's as serious as can be, as they are alleging they switched engines to avoid paying them.
Developing story. Stay tuned.
The lawsuit is online
https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG
CIG response. The standard "dindu nuffin'" defense
“We are aware of the Crytek complaint having been filed in the US District Court. CIG hasn’t used the CryEngine for quite some time since we switched to Amazon’s Lumberyard. This is a meritless lawsuit that we will defend vigorously against, including recovering from Crytek any costs incurred in this matter.”
In case you weren't paying attention, CIG just basically, without legal counsel, just went on the PUBLIC RECORD and ADMITTED to violating one of the items of contention in the lawsuit. See where it mentions 2.1.2 (https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG) in the complaint. wow
Post by: StanTheMan on December 13, 2017, 05:01:41 PM
Quote
That CIG then spent so much time, effort and money working on game assets and ships instead of developing the engine simply made the problems worse
And CRoberts thought that his time was best spent doing MOCAP instead of getting the basics done right.
Post by: dsmart on December 13, 2017, 05:30:58 PM
"Mr. Sammi, as lead trial counsel, recently obtained a $500 million jury verdict for leading video game studio clients ZeniMax Media and id Software against Facebook subsidiary Oculus VR and its executives"
Also, 3 of the 4 listed attorneys were part of the Zenimax team (Sammi, Pak, Hemr)
Post by: StanTheMan on December 13, 2017, 05:41:33 PM
And it all started nearly two years ago. Early 2016 is when Crytek told CIG to knock it the fuck off. CIG gave them the middle finger instead and now here we are.
If that is the case then you would expect Ortwin to have somewhat comprehensible reasons for doing so.
In other words they must have some defence they think is worthy OR.......they know they are screwed and carried on as long as the could to make as much $$$ as they could.
If they knew this was coming it also makes a mockery of any attempts to sell SC on to someone else (not that the engineering debt and presales didn't do that already)
Post by: dsmart on December 13, 2017, 05:43:21 PM
And it all started nearly two years ago. Early 2016 is when Crytek told CIG to knock it the fuck off. CIG gave them the middle finger instead and now here we are.
If that is the case then you would expect Ortwin to have somewhat comprehensible reasons for doing so.
In other words they must have some defence they think is worthy OR.......they know they are screwed and carried on as long as the could to make as much $$$ as they could.
If they knew this was coming it also makes a mockery of any attempts to sell SC on to someone else (not that the engineering debt and presales didn't do that already)
Ortwin? LOL!! Yeah, he's an incompetent ass. Remember Kevin Costner sued their company, Ascendant, into the ground?
Post by: Kyrt on December 13, 2017, 11:15:49 PM
In other words they must have some defence they think is worthy OR.......they know they are screwed and carried on as long as the could to make as much $$$ as they could.
If they knew this was coming it also makes a mockery of any attempts to sell SC on to someone else (not that the engineering debt and presales didn't do that already)
The only possible defence that seems likely is that somehow a termination clause was triggered, allowing CIG to end the contract and move to LumberYard - apparently without telling CryTek. One could also argue that using LumberYard means the game is still using CryEngine, depending on whether or not the law sees LumberYard as a separate entity or not, and so has not switched engines.
To be honest, I don't see either or those as being likely.
The best that it seems CIG can hope for is for the damages to be kept to a "reasonable" amount.
Post by: Aya Reiko on December 13, 2017, 11:55:21 PM
And what's "reasonable"? CIG doesn't even have $10 in Monopoly money.In other words they must have some defence they think is worthy OR.......they know they are screwed and carried on as long as the could to make as much $$$ as they could.
If they knew this was coming it also makes a mockery of any attempts to sell SC on to someone else (not that the engineering debt and presales didn't do that already)
The only possible defence that seems likely is that somehow a termination clause was triggered, allowing CIG to end the contract and move to LumberYard - apparently without telling CryTek. One could also argue that using LumberYard means the game is still using CryEngine, depending on whether or not the law sees LumberYard as a separate entity or not, and so has not switched engines.
To be honest, I don't see either or those as being likely.
The best that it seems CIG can hope for is for the damages to be kept to a "reasonable" amount.
They are fucked. This is the beginning of the avalanche of creditors wanting to get something for their troubles.
Post by: supuvami on December 14, 2017, 03:04:20 AM
This is from the last bugsmashers to date:
(https://i.imgur.com/G5ccgDG.png)
Link to video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru3zwjVMP3A&feature=youtu.be&t=51s)
Post by: nightfire on December 14, 2017, 03:15:42 AM
They are fucked. This is the beginning of the avalanche of creditors wanting to get something for their troubles.
Yup, it's time for the endgame!
(https://i.imgur.com/wMqXFYq.jpg)
Post by: McDrake on December 14, 2017, 04:11:53 AM
Fact: Star Citizen is not using CryEngine anymore.My question is:
This is from the last bugsmashers to date:
(https://i.imgur.com/G5ccgDG.png)
Link to video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru3zwjVMP3A&feature=youtu.be&t=51s)
Does lumberyard shows this popup too (still inside the code)? Or would it be another one.l?
Post by: lurker_404 on December 14, 2017, 04:55:48 AM
Post by: dsmart on December 14, 2017, 07:41:35 AM
http://dereksmart.com/2015/07/interstellar-discourse/ (http://dereksmart.com/2015/07/interstellar-discourse/)
What I said...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRA6fJEW0AAvRVK.jpg)
You COULD say "I called it", right? Right.
Post by: Greggy_D on December 14, 2017, 08:00:02 AM
Post by: StanTheMan on December 14, 2017, 08:32:31 AM
In July 2015, I wrote about why them developing two titles with CryEngine was a legal minefield. Here we are.
http://dereksmart.com/2015/07/interstellar-discourse/ (http://dereksmart.com/2015/07/interstellar-discourse/)
What I said...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRA6fJEW0AAvRVK.jpg)
You COULD say "I called it", right? Right.
I know that Crytek wouldn't want to have taken legal action lightly but you wonder why they didn't act sooner as there was always a danger that the CIG $ would run out.
Post by: Flashwit on December 14, 2017, 09:46:26 AM
I know that Crytek wouldn't want to have taken legal action lightly but you wonder why they didn't act sooner as there was always a danger that the CIG $ would run out.
It's understandable. Unless a company is something like a patent troll, using a lawsuit to fix an issue is generally a last resort.
When I used to own a condo there were some issues with the electrical and metering between the residential and commercial parts of the building. The condo association knew of these issues for a long time and kept pushing on the contractor and insurer responsible for this. It wasn't until the last second that they resorted to legal means.
Lawsuits sucks for everyone.
Post by: AncoGaming on December 14, 2017, 09:51:08 AM
Post by: DemonInvestor on December 14, 2017, 10:32:50 AM
After reading through that lawsuit document I don't see what CIG can do, the charges look pretty open and shut to me. You have to wonder what kind of defense strategy they could muster.I know that Crytek wouldn't want to have taken legal action lightly but you wonder why they didn't act sooner as there was always a danger that the CIG $ would run out.
It's understandable. Unless a company is something like a patent troll, using a lawsuit to fix an issue is generally a last resort.
When I used to own a condo there were some issues with the electrical and metering between the residential and commercial parts of the building. The condo association knew of these issues for a long time and kept pushing on the contractor and insurer responsible for this. It wasn't until the last second that they resorted to legal means.
Lawsuits sucks for everyone.
Lawsuits suck for everyone.
Threatening someone with the believable threat of a lawsuit doesn't though. It depends on the costs of said threat in comparison to what you can gain by it though.
So far i wouldn't see the whole thing as more than a threat. And how serious said threat is, well i don't know - depends on the actual contracts and behaviour. Naturally it looks bad for CIG so far, as we've only got CryTeks account on the whole thing. Though it sounds logical so far...
That said, it's real bad publicity for CryTek and seems to be more of another minor nuissance for CIG as their fans are vaccinated against critcism and bad news already.
Post by: Motto on December 14, 2017, 12:45:25 PM
Post by: dsmart on December 14, 2017, 12:47:44 PM
Exhibit A
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2895381/#Comment_2895381
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ9QfZ9X4AEawN1.jpg)
Exhibit B
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/3033144/#Comment_3033144
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRCqm7OX0AAzPry.jpg)
Exhibit C
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/364217
(https://imgur.com/fGZmPAL.jpg)
Post by: AncoGaming on December 14, 2017, 12:50:17 PM
So in house, you're not allowed to discuss it because apparently we're not a community of sane people (shut up, you know what I mean) and are only allowed to dream up new features and read Q/A threads for new concepts.
It's like covering eyes and ears of a child and keep singing when a mean accident happens across the street. Ridiculous! Reddit is around the corner, every comment section of any gaming related outlet is packed and backers are hardly allowed to discuss why binding the ALT key with freelook is a shitty idea (hint, you lose control of you ship whenever you ALT/TAB).
And even then the whitest of knights migrate to these comment section and bash CryTek for possibly ruining StarCitizen, the "most anticipated game since 10 years and for years to come), I am not making this up! It says, CryTek will piss off gamers all over the world. Oh really? Like, they've signed contracts and agreements, CIG/RSI plays deaf when it comes to man up or pay up, after many inquiries beforehand, with their company almost totally ruined CryTek says enough is enough and gets a case filed in California no less, where it's not that easy to not get such claims dismissed immediately.
But of course, CryTek should have said: Oh well... all those poor gamers whose money will not go into development... we'll just sit there with our thumbs up or ass and let it slide, Chris' vision and those precious backers, man, totally worth it. Well, without our work and dedication not a single tech demo of StarCitizen would have ever seen the light of day, but hey, aren't we all a big family?
Yes, the gaming industry is a big family, but not a cozy one, more like the Sopranos mixed with the Adams'.
Post by: dsmart on December 14, 2017, 01:04:58 PM
(https://imgur.com/xmA0aO0.jpg)
The bottom line is that, nobody cares about CryTek's problems or faults. Only the Citizen Defense Force do.
Regardless anyone's personal opinions about them, CryTek have every reason to protect their IP and enforce a contract. That's all there is to this.
Further, without CryTek and CryEngine, there would be no Star Citizen. Period. So if there is a contract that says they should haven't benefited from the windfall etc, then that's value they have lost and which they are entitled to as per their claim.
Hilariously, I remember back in 2015 when I was writing that CryTek built the demo, trailers etc, and CDF were saying it was bullshit, and CIG/RSI never confirmed it. Now it's confirmed as fact in the legal filing.
At the end of the day, CryTek has been trying to resolve this for years. Says so right there in the filing. They sued because CIG probably called their bluff.
And anyone who thinks that hiring a firm like Skadden, is tantamount to a quick payday for a few hundred thousand bucks settlement, is a moron. We're talking millions here. And the funding chart is going to play into that because that's the metric showing what CIG/RSI claims to have raised, and CryTek was instrumental in them getting there.
I am fully expecting this to either get settled before discovery, or CIG/RSI folds. Discovery is going to be an absolute embarrassment for them which could also open them to additional causes of action in the lawsuit. Not to mention revealing just how much money they really raised.
This is a big fucking deal, and we'll see how they respond within the 20 day time limit they now have. Either way, Ortwin already gave them what many believe to be an early win in their response to the media.
Post by: AncoGaming on December 14, 2017, 01:45:06 PM
I haven't been a backer when this came along, I think. I came in pretty late, only bought flyable ships, still have fun with most of them, enjoy the view, the dogfights and violence even if I lose and openly mention what I can't stand as any reasonable, sane person would do and is, in my opinion, entitled to say without getting forcefully silenced by moderators.
I've never been banned, fair enough, but what can I do if the threads get deleted? That's passive-aggressive banning in my view, but I digress.
In this thread, we're not talking about opinions. We're not talking about being a fan or not. Thank god!
We're talking about a cold, hard case which even I know shouldn't be taken lightly.
"And anyone who thinks that hiring a firm like Skadden, is tantamount to a quick payday for a few hundred thousand bucks settlement, is a moron. We're talking millions here. And the funding chart is going to play into that because that's the metric showing what CIG/RSI claims to have raised, and CryTek was instrumental in them getting there."
Yes, Sir. Some people get mislead by a single number. 75.000$. I did my homework and now know that this is kind of a door opening, minimum ammount to not get the case dismissed in California, probably because otherwise everyone would drag their plumber to court because some pipes weren't polished, I don't know. However, this number is symbolic for the fact that now the good times are over and has nothing to do with the numbers which can and will pop up when it comes to a settlement.
And if there'll be no settlement, RSI/CIG better have some ground to stand on and sue CryTek because every other action would make them look like they've just been cought with their hand in the cookie jar.
Post by: dsmart on December 14, 2017, 01:52:09 PM
As to the money, since CryTek is claiming that they are due monies on what the project has raised, that's what gives them an opening to gain access (via discovery) to whatever the project has raised.
It is an absolute nightmare, and the clueless Citizen Defense Force can downplay it all they want because they live in a fantasy world.
Post by: AncoGaming on December 14, 2017, 02:16:29 PM
"Chris, CryTek called. Something about agreements and IP and all that."
-"Tell 'em I'm not in the country!"
"They're not from this country, Chris."
-"Well, then don't answer the phone, I'm off to Hollywood!"
"Okay, but now they're writing Emails."
-"Oh for fuck's sake, that's what a spam folder is for!"
"Alright, I'll call Erin."
*calls Erin*
"Hey Erin, It's about those guys from CryT... Erin?" *duut duut duut*
Post by: Andrew on December 14, 2017, 03:02:54 PM
After reading through that lawsuit document I don't see what CIG can do, the charges look pretty open and shut to me.
Well, the post Derek quoted states that they supposedly branched off CryEngine at the exact same time as Amazon. Amazon on the other hand owns whatever CryEngine core they use. So my guess would be that they will claim that everything they have now is Lumberyard. Looks like they really tried to pull the rug out under Crytek here - probably in light of their financial troubles they wanted to get away from them, got wind of the Amazon deal and prepared the switch.
Not sure how locked in they are by their agreement with Crytek. Is it really so tight that say if they had found (as they did, in a way) that their game can not be built with CryEngine that they still would have to stick with it?
This makes the whole Lumberyard-Switch and the "we did it in 2 days"-thing appear in a different light as well, does it not? The statement was ridiculed at the time but maybe it was a lie that was somehow necessary to pull this U-turn on Crytek (for example because the real timeline would get them in legal-trouble)?
Post by: AncoGaming on December 14, 2017, 03:19:02 PM
Anyway, I'm pretty sure it all boils down to the fine print in contracts and/or agreements between CIG/RSI and CryTek and respective rights/claims that follow from that which were or weren't upheld. The fact that a lawfirm, which has built up a certain reputation, will not let 4 of their best bloodsuckers go into court without doing their homework and being almost sure to make some serious dough and the reaction of CIG/RSI (pissing their pants infront of their own backers, shutting everyone up) leads me to think that there, in fact, is a case no matter what our opinion of it might be.
Post by: AncoGaming on December 14, 2017, 03:43:32 PM
My opinion is that CIG/RSI used backer money, millions of crowd funded $ which were suppused to go into game development, to buy a lot of expensive real estate, split it up between many companies which only exist as a mailbox somewhere, then went to the bank, put a loan on it so they don't have any "revenue". In other words, I've backed for some guy's tax evasion, on paper these companies own nothing and can't be liable for anything. As long as there is constant cash flow, everything's fine.
If the cash flow stops, banks don't get their interest, seize the real estate instead, companies go belly up and all the money is gone. Backers are screwed, tax payers are screwed, employees are screwed and Chris sails off into the sunset unharmed while dreaming of his next big vision and what to do with his bank accounts from Cyprus, the Caiman Islands, Isle of Man and maybe Switzerland.
At least that's how it could have been planned. Be a shame if some attorneys were to dig deeply into every transaction because their clients have some undisputable claims.
Post by: Kyrt on December 14, 2017, 04:33:52 PM
Well, the post Derek quoted states that they supposedly branched off CryEngine at the exact same time as Amazon. Amazon on the other hand owns whatever CryEngine core they use. So my guess would be that they will claim that everything they have now is Lumberyard. Looks like they really tried to pull the rug out under Crytek here - probably in light of their financial troubles they wanted to get away from them, got wind of the Amazon deal and prepared the switch.
They can try to claim that everything they have is now LumberYard
BUT - a lot of their code still seems to be CryEngine, or derived from that.
More, even if they successfully argued that, they can only do so by admitting that they are in breach of contract...namely, the exclusivity aspect.
As it is, the engine they are using today appears to be the customised version of CryEngine they renamed StarEngine....which itself proves the complaint regarding lack of promotion...combined with a few modules from LumberYard, likely dealing with AWS...remember them boasting that they'd kept all their derived custom code intact? That'd still be "part of " CryEngine.
CryTek seems to have them in a vice here....they can perhaps argue against some complaints, but only by admitting to others.
Quote
Not sure how locked in they are by their agreement with Crytek. Is it really so tight that say if they had found (as they did, in a way) that their game can not be built with CryEngine that they still would have to stick with it?
I would say that is a distinct possibility and it would explain whey Chris Roberts made the hugely stupid decision to stick with CryEngine despite its lack of suitability for an MMO.
It doesn't excuse his move to LumberYard, which was also banned by the same GLA, or his decision to switch genres anyway.
Quote
This makes the whole Lumberyard-Switch and the "we did it in 2 days"-thing appear in a different light as well, does it not? The statement was ridiculed at the time but maybe it was a lie that was somehow necessary to pull this U-turn on Crytek (for example because the real timeline would get them in legal-trouble)?
I'd be prepared to believe the two days. Ben Parry, IIRC, was the dev who basically admitted all CIG did was switch logos and copy over some of Lumberyards networking modules. It's why recent (I think) photos of SC code still lists it as being compiled with CryEngine.
Post by: dsmart on December 14, 2017, 05:27:23 PM
Post by: dsmart on December 14, 2017, 06:40:43 PM
(https://imgur.com/PsnTDmV.jpg)
Hold my beer, I got this...
http://www.dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/ (http://www.dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/)
Post by: justme on December 15, 2017, 04:00:17 AM
and any idea, what costs could come with a conviction?
Post by: orko on December 15, 2017, 05:53:49 AM
Hold my beer, I got this...
Just need to point out one thing since I think this detail isn't leading anywhere. There's a simple answer to that question "...why is Amazon copyright missing from that video?"
The file is within Lumberyard, and you can check it here: https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/blob/master/dev/Code/CryEngine/CryCommon/INetwork.h (https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/blob/master/dev/Code/CryEngine/CryCommon/INetwork.h)
In the video the code is only visible starting from line 11: https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941031827258691585 (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941031827258691585)
EDIT: Typo.
Post by: dsmart on December 15, 2017, 06:39:19 AM
Hold my beer, I got this...
Just need to point out one thing since I think this detail isn't leading anywhere. There's a simple answer to that question "...why is Amazon copyright missing from that video?"
The file is within Lumberyard, and you can check it here: https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/blob/master/dev/Code/CryEngine/CryCommon/INetwork.h (https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/blob/master/dev/Code/CryEngine/CryCommon/INetwork.h)
In the video the code is only visible starting from line 11: https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941031827258691585 (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941031827258691585)
EDIT: Typo.
As I have both engines, I have files from both CryEngine and Lumberyard, and I am not understanding your point. Did I miss something?
Post by: orko on December 15, 2017, 07:11:34 AM
As I have both engines, I have files from both CryEngine and Lumberyard, and I am not understanding your point. Did I miss something?
I don't think so, I'm just saying that the user iBibbles at Polygon is wrong (see the pic you posted earlier). He claimed that in the Bugsmashers video the code file "INetwork.h" doesn't have the Amazon copyright part.
It most likely does, it is just not visible in the video as the file has been scrolled down a bit. Even the row count matches between the video and Lumberyard's source. I think this kind of details are too easily missed.
EDIT: Now I think I must be missing something instead? LOL
EDIT 2: It is this particular moment in the video that iBibbles is concerned about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pogHyFDCAk&feature=youtu.be&t=117 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pogHyFDCAk&feature=youtu.be&t=117) He thinks that the file is missing Amazon copyright part and is therefore part of original CryEngine, but as you can see, that is not the case.
Post by: StanTheMan on December 15, 2017, 11:18:19 AM
what time do you expect, they will need to come to a result?
and any idea, what costs could come with a conviction?
Watch this...all of it.
You will learn something.
Post by: dsmart on December 15, 2017, 06:47:59 PM
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/13/16774244/crytek-star-citizen-cryengine-lawsuit
(https://i.imgur.com/C6TGXfk.png)
Post by: Orgetorix on December 17, 2017, 11:11:14 PM
Right off the bat SKADDEN comes out swinging hard for the fences. This little gem right here, just popped right out at me,
Quote
15. On November 20, 2012, Crytek and Defendants entered into a Game License Agreement ("GLA") with Crytek. The GLA was extensively negotiated, and negotiations on behalf of the Defendants were led by one of the Defendants' co-founders, Freyermuth. In prior years, Freyermuth also represented Crytek in negotiations of similar license agreements with third parties. Notwithstanding that he had confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices that would unfairly advantage Defendants, Freyermuth never recused himself from those negotiations and never resolved that conflict of interest with Crytek. The negotiations on behalf of Crytek were led by Carl Jones, then an employee of Crytek. Jones later left Crytek and became an employee of Defendants.
If that doesn't demonstrate fraudulent collusion, I don't know what does. A jury will eat that up like candy and treble damages on the sugar high. With that allegation, SKADDEN is setting up to make a run at "Piercing the Corporate Veil". SKADDEN knows CIG/RSI are pretty much insolvent, it looks to me that they are setting up to make a run at the shareholders of the shell companies, eg... Croberts, Sandi, Erin, & Ortwin, ect... I'm telling you guys that paragraph 15 in this brief is the most important one. It's the one that shows fraud at the outset of the contract negotiations, and can directly lead to Croberts & Co. being left buck naked in mosquito country.
We all knew that Croberts & Co. were a bunch of amoral d-bags, but once you shine a light, and get a really good look. All I can say is :wtchris:
In my estimation this won't be settled pretrial. I don't think CIG/RSI has enough cash on hand to settle this. Crytek/SKADDEN must be aiming for $40-50 million on the high end. You don't sign a contract like this, raise $160 million+, then turn around and wipe your ass with it, and expect to get off cheap.
Croberts has finally proper fucked himself. He's in a position now where he can't settle and NDA the settlement, and if he goes to trial the Federal Discovery will blow the whole scam up. All they can do now is delay, delay, delay, rinse and repeat. Which of course is old hat to him, it's all he's done his entire life...
Post by: David-2 on December 17, 2017, 11:47:20 PM
In prior years, Freyermuth also represented Crytek in negotiations of similar license agreements with third parties. Notwithstanding that he had confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices that would unfairly advantage Defendants, Freyermuth never recused himself from those negotiations and never resolved that conflict of interest with Crytek.
I have to say, contrary to your opinion, that I thought this claim (or fact I forget which) was by far the weakest of the whole document.
Crytek obviously knew that Freyermuth had previously represented it in these negotiations, so they should have insisted he recuse himself back when they were negotiating with CIG. Since they didn't, I would suppose it is too late to complain about it now.
Unless the claim is that he wasn't actually in the room, just talking to CIG's real representatives over the phone, and that his participation was hidden from Crytek. But they don't say that, they say that the negotiations were led by Freyermuth.
So I don't get why this claim is material at all.
Post by: Orgetorix on December 18, 2017, 12:05:13 AM
I have to say, contrary to your opinion, that I thought this claim (or fact I forget which) was by far the weakest of the whole document.
Crytek obviously knew that Freyermuth had previously represented it in these negotiations, so they should have insisted he recuse himself back when they were negotiating with CIG. Since they didn't, I would suppose it is too late to complain about it now.
Unless the claim is that he wasn't actually in the room, just talking to CIG's real representatives over the phone, and that his participation was hidden from Crytek. But they don't say that, they say that the negotiations were led by Freyermuth.
So I don't get why this claim is material at all.
Normally I'd agree with you, but for the fact of Carl Jones. He was Crytek's representative in the negotiations. After the negotiations were finalized, CIG/RSI gave him a job. So basically what SKADDEN is alleging is that Jones working with Ortwin colluded to get CIG/RSI the best deal they could out of Crytek fraudulently. All the while never having any real intent on honoring the contract, because neither had clean hands. (https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/clean-hands-doctrine/)
The least is first, and the first is last. I've seen it again, and again in law. What you think is the least point in a case turns out to be the major point.
My main point is that SKADDEN put that into the brief because, in my humble estimation, it's a cause of action for them to request the bench to "Pierce The Corporate Veil" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil). By doing so they only strengthen their position. If I was in SKADDEN shoes, that would be my main focus.
How do we get Croberts & Co. out from behind CIG/RSI, so that when we win at trial, we're not liening up a bunch of insolvent shell companies?
Post by: Orgetorix on December 18, 2017, 01:01:13 AM
cahoots (k<<schwa>>-hoots).Slang. Partnership, esp. in an illegal act; collusion <Ortwin Freyermuth was in cahoots with Carl Jones when they were negotiating the Game License Agreement ("GLA") between Crytek, and CIG/RSI>.
:vince:
Post by: Orgetorix on December 18, 2017, 01:57:04 AM
piercing the corporate veil.The judicial act of imposing personal liability on otherwise
immune corporate officers, directors, and shareholders for the corporation's wrongful acts. — Also
termed disregarding the corporate entity; veil-piercing. See CORPORATE VEIL. [Cases:
Corporations 1.4(1). C.J.S. Corporations §§ 9, 13.]
“[C]ourts sometimes apply common law principles to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ and hold
shareholders personally liable for corporate debts or obligations. Unfortunately, despite the
enormous volume of litigation in this area, the case law fails to articulate any sensible rationale or
policy that explains when corporate existence should be disregarded. Indeed, courts are
remarkably prone to rely on labels or characterizations of relationships (such as ‘alter ego,’
‘instrumentality,’ or ‘sham’) and the decisions offer little in the way of predictability or rational
explanation of why enumerated factors should be decisive.” Barry R. Furrow et al., Health Law §
5-4, at 182 (2d ed. 2000)
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP are no dummies. They're looking for the money, and if you bring suit, how are you going to collect from a bunch of insolvent shell corporations?
Post by: dsmart on December 18, 2017, 05:06:44 AM
I have to say, contrary to your opinion, that I thought this claim (or fact I forget which) was by far the weakest of the whole document.
Crytek obviously knew that Freyermuth had previously represented it in these negotiations, so they should have insisted he recuse himself back when they were negotiating with CIG. Since they didn't, I would suppose it is too late to complain about it now.
Unless the claim is that he wasn't actually in the room, just talking to CIG's real representatives over the phone, and that his participation was hidden from Crytek. But they don't say that, they say that the negotiations were led by Freyermuth.
So I don't get why this claim is material at all.
Read this. I cover it there. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942373527893798912.html
Post by: N0mad on December 18, 2017, 05:38:19 AM
Read this. I cover it there. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942373527893798912.html
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my armchair lawyer interpretation is that by naming the two lawyers in the court documents makes them, at the very least, witnesses in the case. Neither of them is accused of wrongdoing, but now neither of them can invoke attorney-client privilege to try and cover up relevant evidence - especially since they were the individuals most involved with the original GLA agreement. Clearly one of the allegations will be that CIG clearly knew the implications of the agreement since they now employ the lawyers who negotiated both sides of it !
At least that's my (amateur) reading of the case.
Post by: Motto on December 18, 2017, 05:50:50 AM
Post by: N0mad on December 18, 2017, 06:01:43 AM
Post by: dsmart on December 18, 2017, 06:03:01 AM
The monthly burn rate at CIG has been estimated at $3 - 4 million. If CIG are still paying their staff then they presumably have enough money to satisfy this claim. They might not be able to pay their staff afterwards though.
Are you suggesting that the claim is in the region of $3-4M? I am a little confused; could you clarify what you mean?
Post by: the_wolfmann on December 18, 2017, 06:14:02 AM
If the companies are insolvent doesn't it fall on the owners to pay up? They have unjustly enriched themselves anyway. It'll be the ultimate justice to leave them on the streets (if not in jail).
And LOL if Chris really expected CryTek to go under so that his problem would go away. :laugh:
Post by: N0mad on December 18, 2017, 06:19:34 AM
Derek, when is this new breaking news of yours being released?
Post by: Kyrt on December 18, 2017, 07:46:50 AM
The monthly burn rate at CIG has been estimated at $3 - 4 million. If CIG are still paying their staff then they presumably have enough money to satisfy this claim. They might not be able to pay their staff afterwards though.
I don't know if I'd put it that high.
The $13.5k per man month is still only a rough rule of thumb....and one that presumes the company is paying its bills. If they stiffed CryTek who knows who else is waiting.
Post by: DemonInvestor on December 18, 2017, 09:08:10 AM
My personal guess for the seeked compensation would be more based upon a percentage of the sales, than what they got from Amazon for their engine. Which sounds about right, as i don't think the licensing fees are that high for a normale license, when compared towards a percentage of that 170m, or even the 150m or so they'd reached when they switched engines.
In the end it's still just speculating without any idea what their contract really said.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 18, 2017, 12:44:38 PM
Post by: Aya Reiko on December 18, 2017, 01:53:17 PM
There is one thing bugging me ever since this lawsuit started. I'm assuming that they did some research at Skadden. It should be pretty obvious that there is no money left at CIG, at least not much. Even if Chris and his merry gang did skim off, will there be enough to satisfy both CryTek and Skadden? I'm guessing there won't be since the largest part of the money most likely actually has been spent on staff etc. How come Skadden still took on the job?That's why the discovery phase is going to be so much FUN! :allears:
Considering this firm got a judgment against FB to the tune of half a billion over OR, I'm leaning more towards a judgment of at least $75 million against CIG
Post by: Kyrt on December 18, 2017, 04:28:20 PM
Where do you people get the 13.5k per person estimate from?
It's an industry wide rule of thumb for guessetimating the total budget of a project.
If you have a staff of x and think a project will take y months to deliver, then the total budget you should allocate will be about $13.5k per man month. That accounts for pay and benefits....rent...power...licenses...equipment...and so on. So x * y * $13.5k would be the total budget.
Actual costs may be higher or lower but it is seen as a useful rule of thumb.
Quote
My personal guess for the seeked compensation would be more based upon a percentage of the sales, than what they got from Amazon for their engine. Which sounds about right, as i don't think the licensing fees are that high for a normale license, when compared towards a percentage of that 170m, or even the 150m or so they'd reached when they switched engines.
In the end it's still just speculating without any idea what their contract really said.
A lot will depend on the GLA but I think it more likely CryTek want a settlement...one that gives them cash and protects their IP.
However...it must also be remembered that CIG used exCryTek developers to modify CryEngine into a "new" engine they named Star Engine and refused to share those changes with CryTek. Amazon paid $70 million for that privilege.
CryTek probably isn't going to be looking for that amount.
But they will want a payment and they will want their IP protected.
Best outcome for CIG would be for them to hand over the optimizations for CryEngine they promised to provide, to give CryTek a payment that reflects list revenue AND punitive damages and that CryTek gives them time to switch over their entire system to LumberYard...maybe 3-6 months.
Well...unless CIG has some document freeing them from the GLA
Post by: StanTheMan on December 18, 2017, 08:20:26 PM
There is one thing bugging me ever since this lawsuit started. I'm assuming that they did some research at Skadden. It should be pretty obvious that there is no money left at CIG, at least not much. Even if Chris and his merry gang did skim off, will there be enough to satisfy both CryTek and Skadden? I'm guessing there won't be since the largest part of the money most likely actually has been spent on staff etc. How come Skadden still took on the job?
Sure but we don't need to worry about that.
Could be lots of things but most likely the $.
Crytek is a going concern, CIG is a going concern.
Post by: Flashwit on December 19, 2017, 09:28:09 AM
Post by: dsmart on December 22, 2017, 08:00:57 AM
Post by: JustComments on December 29, 2017, 03:21:35 PM
Just figured I'd join and see what's up, because that new version 3.0 of 'that game' doesn't even run on my PC. So if you're in the same boat, join the party here:
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/368/897/467/demand-cloud-imperium-games-to-release-their-financial-information/
I want to know what the hell they're doing with my money. Don't you?
Post by: Motto on December 29, 2017, 03:24:57 PM
Post by: Kyrt on December 29, 2017, 06:08:51 PM
Hey guys, New comer here... also a backer for 'that game'. :cripes:
Just figured I'd join and see what's up, because that new version 3.0 of 'that game' doesn't even run on my PC. So if you're in the same boat, join the party here:
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/368/897/467/demand-cloud-imperium-games-to-release-their-financial-information/
I want to know what the hell they're doing with my money. Don't you?
I know what they're doing with your money
They're spending it.
Game development is...can be...very expensive
If you are concerned that they are squandering your money, that they are wasting your money....well, they are.
They have space doors to pay for...the debacle over third parties and communication issues would have cost millions...I believe Chris Roberts did get his (IIRC) $3 million to license Star Citizen to CIG (if I understand the reports correctly) so at least that money was well spent. And of course, there are the upcoming lawyers fees....
So - the answer - IMO anyway - is that the money is being squandered and misspent. I just can't be sure how much.
Or are you worried about if they have any money left? Well...the UK based F42 looks to have posts CIG about $70 million over three years. Double that to account for the other three offices, and add in a bit extra to account for the previous three years. They've got between (less than) $0 and $40 million in reserve depending on the estimates.
Seriously - really - I don't think CIG have any interest in releasing their financial information. Or at least, any more than they have to. And I don't believe they'll pay attention to any petition or poll.
If you are concerned about finances, the only thing I can really suggest is that you ask for a refund on the grounds that they haven't provided the product you paid for. That might work.
Post by: StanTheMan on December 30, 2017, 10:16:06 AM
I know what they're doing with your money
They're spending it.
Game development is...can be...very expensive
If you are concerned that they are squandering your money, that they are wasting your money....well, they are.
They have space doors to pay for...the debacle over third parties and communication issues would have cost millions...I believe Chris Roberts did get his (IIRC) $3 million to license Star Citizen to CIG (if I understand the reports correctly) so at least that money was well spent. And of course, there are the upcoming lawyers fees....
So - the answer - IMO anyway - is that the money is being squandered and misspent. I just can't be sure how much.
Or are you worried about if they have any money left? Well...the UK based F42 looks to have posts CIG about $70 million over three years. Double that to account for the other three offices, and add in a bit extra to account for the previous three years. They've got between (less than) $0 and $40 million in reserve depending on the estimates.
Seriously - really - I don't think CIG have any interest in releasing their financial information. Or at least, any more than they have to. And I don't believe they'll pay attention to any petition or poll.
If you are concerned about finances, the only thing I can really suggest is that you ask for a refund on the grounds that they haven't provided the product you paid for. That might work.
Organise a way for Backers to ask CIG for a refund (as individuals) with the understanding that you will all buy back in en mass once accounts are published.
Post by: justme on January 01, 2018, 06:44:53 AM
they have that much known sub companies, and nobody knows, how many
others are out there. with that amount of many they have and they do,
they easily could hire some well known financial companies, to get the reports
and taxes optimized.
the only way to get this done would be, to find and freeze every relating account
and put a specialized team of people on this.
but normaly, these people won't work for the gov, because the financial companies
pay a multiple salary. knowledge is money.
i think this would be a don quixote fight.
Post by: Backer42 on January 01, 2018, 07:06:47 AM
Organise a way for Backers to ask CIG for a refund (as individuals) with the understanding that you will all buy back in en mass once accounts are published.I don't think anybody sane is ever going to buy back into that trainwreck.
It already shows that it fails to perform as enjoyable video game. Even in the very early and broken stages of Minecraft pre-alpha people were already enjoying playing it so much, that they started creating mods for a broken WIP game to extend it. As we know the rest is history.
Anything I've ever seen or played from Star Citizen was outright frustrating, boring and cumbersome. This is never going to become an product of real entertainment with Chris Roberts at the helm. This guy has no clue how to make video games.
Post by: dsmart on January 01, 2018, 09:32:01 AM
does anybody really thinks, that we will ever see a real financial report?
they have that much known sub companies, and nobody knows, how many
others are out there. with that amount of many they have and they do,
they easily could hire some well known financial companies, to get the reports
and taxes optimized.
the only way to get this done would be, to find and freeze every relating account
and put a specialized team of people on this.
but normaly, these people won't work for the gov, because the financial companies
pay a multiple salary. knowledge is money.
i think this would be a don quixote fight.
Only investors, parties with financial interests (e.g. the Crytek lawsuit), or the State|Fed officials will ever get access to the financials. Backers never - ever - will.
Post by: Aya Reiko on January 01, 2018, 01:18:38 PM
does anybody really thinks, that we will ever see a real financial report?Only in the discovery phase in the aftermath of CryTek's lawsuit.
they have that much known sub companies, and nobody knows, how many
others are out there. with that amount of many they have and they do,
they easily could hire some well known financial companies, to get the reports
and taxes optimized.
the only way to get this done would be, to find and freeze every relating account
and put a specialized team of people on this.
but normaly, these people won't work for the gov, because the financial companies
pay a multiple salary. knowledge is money.
i think this would be a don quixote fight.
Post by: dsmart on January 03, 2018, 07:06:28 AM
Post by: N0mad on January 03, 2018, 07:13:44 AM
Post by: jwh1701 on January 03, 2018, 07:21:59 AM
Skadden amended their lawsuit complaint against CIG. I have written a thread (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948544238790299648.html) covering it.
Good write up, I'm very interested to see the your take on the response from CIG when it happens.
Post by: nightfire on January 03, 2018, 08:07:22 AM
Skadden amended their lawsuit complaint against CIG. I have written a thread (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948544238790299648.html) covering it.
They peppered it with a fair sprinkling of the word "intentional" :smuggo:
Post by: dsmart on January 03, 2018, 08:15:19 AM
Good write up, I'm very interested to see the your take on the response from CIG when it happens.
They were due to respond today, as per the Pacer listing (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al). But this amended complaint probably means that RSI/CIG have more time to respond. Which means that they probably won't respond today, which is the deadline as per the original complaint.
I can't wait to read their response. It's going to be amazing.
Post by: Flashwit on January 03, 2018, 10:05:00 AM
Quote from: Skadden
66. Defendants continue to intentionally reproduce, display, and distribute new versions of Squadron 42 that embed the copyrighted CryEngine computer program without authorization.
I gotta get me a copy of that.
Post by: dsmart on January 03, 2018, 11:14:48 AM
Haha, I know it's just legalese but it reads like Skadden has gotten their hands on a distribution of Squadron 42.
I gotta get me a copy of that.
No they don't. Hence the use of the word "intentionally"
Post by: StanTheMan on January 03, 2018, 06:15:15 PM
Post by: dsmart on January 04, 2018, 05:22:02 AM
So the implication of intentionally being included is that Scadden is likely to have strong evidence of that being so (or else it wouldn't be worth the risk to their/the cases credibility amend the complaint at this stage in that manner)
Pretty much. They're now implying that RSI/CIG were well aware that they were breaching the agreement, but did it anyway. Showing intent is key to damages.
Post by: premiumnugz on January 04, 2018, 07:05:44 AM
I can't wait to read their response. It's going to be amazing.
Oh god imagine if that egotistical moron Ortwin writes it :laugh:
"Chris Roberts is Jesus and we can do whatever we want, who are you US Courts to challenge the mighty Star Citizen and take money out of the hungry mouths of Star Citizen fans?"
That's a joke but so is Ortwin as an attorney.
Post by: StanTheMan on January 04, 2018, 10:28:28 AM
Pretty much. They're now implying that RSI/CIG were well aware that they were breaching the agreement, but did it anyway. Showing intent is key to damages.
Why would "intent" not have been included in the original filing from such a capable firm ?
Post by: Spunky Munkee on January 04, 2018, 10:37:19 AM
Post by: N0mad on January 04, 2018, 10:40:57 AM
Star Citizen is his finest work to date, where he has combined every aspect of of his earlier works, from Wing Commander and Freelancer to his time spent in Hollywood. So you not only get to see Mark Hamill flying space ships, in an over-scoped game which Chris can't make, but you get to see Chris run out of money and get sued as well.
At least he might make some money from the movie of the SC disaster, Sandi might actually get some screen time in this one.
Post by: dsmart on January 04, 2018, 11:04:36 AM
Why would "intent" not have been included in the original filing from such a capable firm ?
Read my latest thread from this morning and you will understand. It's related to Ortwin
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948952076004089857.html
Post by: Spunky Munkee on January 04, 2018, 11:05:05 AM
Then they will talk about the bill pending in the Senate to tighten regulations for crowdfunding as Chris Roberts and Ortwin await sentencing for some overlooked Rico act violation (or something to that effect). I just believe that there must have been some sort of criminal violations hiding under all of that bullshit legalese. Perhaps they were skimming backers money as they did with their failed film corporation and the loan was a repeat of the same find replacement and scam. They say the best tricks are the old tricks. they pulled it off once why not try it again? Skim the cash just before they bottom out and then repayment hits killing off CIG and/or removing S42 from their ownership and the need to continue development.
It's just a guess. Where there is smoke there is fire. I cannot believe that they are on the up and up.
Post by: Aya Reiko on January 04, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
ooo... meme brainwave...
Post by: N0mad on January 04, 2018, 02:30:08 PM
They say the best tricks are the old tricks. they pulled it off once why not try it again? Skim the cash just before they bottom out and then repayment hits killing off CIG and/or removing S42 from their ownership and the need to continue development.
Has Chris been having any holidays in countries without US extradition treaties and banks which don't ask too many questions? Just a thought.
Post by: StanTheMan on January 04, 2018, 06:01:40 PM
Read my latest thread from this morning and you will understand. It's related to Ortwin
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948952076004089857.html
I still dont understand what Skadden have found out since filing that they didnt already know (about Ortwin)
I appreciate they may have just done some more work on what info they had and decided to amend it.
Also, why wouldn't Chris Roberts be very well up on the specific details of the GLA and thus aware he was breaking it ?
It isnt some obscure clause we are talking about here, or is it ?
Post by: Bubba on January 04, 2018, 11:30:43 PM
But Sandi carefully curates her imdb page, and you can see that there is a SC documentary in the works. My personal wildly optimistic fantasy involves getting the rights and the footage at the firesale.
Post by: N0mad on January 05, 2018, 02:47:57 AM
Also, why wouldn't Chris Roberts be very well up on the specific details of the GLA and thus aware he was breaking it ?
It isnt some obscure clause we are talking about here, or is it ?
Better than that, they have Ortwin who has negotiated both sides of the same GLA a various times (hence the reason for mentioning that information in the court documents at all). Therefore CIG can't say they were unaware they were breaking it.
Most likely, they switched to Lumberyard so they didn't have to pay a license fee thinking Crytek was going bust therefore they'd get away with it - like the greedy incompetents they are.
Post by: dsmart on January 05, 2018, 05:05:05 AM
I still dont understand what Skadden have found out since filing that they didnt already know (about Ortwin)
It's all in my that thread, all clearly laid out. Plus, law suits are fluid; there is always new information available.
Quote
I appreciate they may have just done some more work on what info they had and decided to amend it.
Well, yeah.
Quote
Also, why wouldn't Chris Roberts be very well up on the specific details of the GLA and thus aware he was breaking it ?
We don't know they broke it. All we have are allegations that they did. Once we have the facts, the rest will be clear.
Quote
It isnt some obscure clause we are talking about here, or is it ?
The Crytek lawsuit was very specific and I've done my best to lay it all out in layman terms. I can't do much more than that.
Post by: dsmart on January 05, 2018, 02:56:14 PM
Read it. Then stay tuned for the regularly schedule lol-along choir.
DISCLAIMER: It's real. That's NOT a Goon Photoshop. We're not that brazen. Yet.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSzxJqrWsAUYYT0.jpg)
So, the company backers gave $175M to build a game they have yet to deliver, is now charging the big spenders for a meet and greet.
Here we thought them taking backer money to manufacture cheap Chinese goods, then selling them back to backers at a mark up profite was bad.
LOL!!
$175M raised from backers, over a 6 year period.
And they can't spend $21K to invite 60 lucky backers to the studio they PAID for.
This is absolutely mind-boggling to me.
Post by: N0mad on January 05, 2018, 03:12:04 PM
They're going to have to do something spectacular, selling tanks seems a bit dull. Maybe some sort of giant walking battlemech thing which can be loaded into a specialised space ship ? It's not as though CR has any original thoughts anyway.
Post by: jwh1701 on January 05, 2018, 03:15:53 PM
Post by: N0mad on January 05, 2018, 03:22:04 PM
So sad as it makes one wonder if they will turn SC into a nickle and dime you machine beyond the tanks, merchandising etc. Chris should be going out of his way serve the community that gave him so much money. Asking for money just to meet him with the current state of the game is in poor taste.
Yeah, but at this stage I'm surprised that they're not charging more.
Like I said, clearly Battle mechs are the way forward.
Post by: nightfire on January 05, 2018, 03:49:46 PM
Here we thought them taking backer money to manufacture cheap Chinese goods, then selling them back to backers at a mark up profite was bad.
How many Chinese NPC's are working on those Squadron 42 in-game T-shirts for Star Citizen?
CIG has become too cheap even for real Chinese sweatshops!
Post by: Spunky Munkee on January 05, 2018, 05:09:43 PM
Are we due JPEG sales any time soon? I've got a feeling CIG need the cash right now.
"They're going to have to do something spectacular, selling tanks seems a bit dull. "
Right about now the Sex-bots and Hooker-bot auctions will begin. Perfect for those long lonely excursions through space. They even fit in the tight quarters of a Mustang. You can buy Sex-bots but the Hooker-bots work for voucher tickets at the refueling stations. They will begin selling the Hooker-bot vouchers in six packs for discounted prices next week.
RSI will sell lap mounted interfaces to bring a new sense of reality to the game. It's coming, it's really coming boys! Thar she blows!
(unlike the Star Citizen controllers/ joysticks)
Post by: DemonInvestor on January 05, 2018, 06:21:49 PM
Yeah, but at this stage I'm surprised that they're not charging more.
Like I said, clearly Battle mechs are the way forward.
Nah... Stealth tanks like in CnC ... you practically can get a jpeg of one with no work at all! Not even thinking about how easy such would be on the engine... :dance:
Post by: StanTheMan on January 05, 2018, 09:31:29 PM
Quote
It isnt some obscure clause we are talking about here, or is it ?
Quote
The Crytek lawsuit was very specific and I've done my best to lay it all out in layman terms. I can't do much more than that.
Sorry, I meant that (paraphrasing) you say that you don't think Roberts deliberately broke the agreement (laying the blame with Ortwin).
I am saying that if that is what you believe, on what basis do you think that Roberts wouldn't be pretty well acquainted with the GLA
As the complaint is about what one imagines are core components of such a licencing agreement it seems reasonable to me, that anyone in Roberts position would know about it.
Post by: N0mad on January 06, 2018, 03:31:04 PM
GLA (2.1.2) Crytek grants CIG a license to exclusively embed CryEngine in the game. Now, CIG claim that this means that Crytek will ONLY license CryEngine to CIG, which is an almost, no, IS a laughable defence.
Now, I'm not sure about the legal use of the term "exclusive", but in the defence CIG claim to have a right but not a restriction to use Cryengine. ie. They can choose a different Engine. Even if that were the case there is still:
GLA (2.4) During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of 2 years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and Affiliates shall not directly or indirectly engage in the business of designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine.
This paragraph isn't even mentioned in the response from CIG's lawyers (at least not that I could find after a skim read and Ctrl-F search). It would be pretty clear cut that using Lumberyard would be in breach of this section. Although I'm pretty sure they've misinterpreted section 2.1.2 - oh but wait, don't CIG have someone who knows EXACTLY what is legally meant by these phrases as he negotiated this agreement on behalf of CIG AND Crytek?
All in all, I expect this to result in much hilarity. Especially since the zealots seem to have formed the opinion that publishing the GLA has now killed Crytek's motion stone cold dead. For example, Exhibit 1 from the SC reddit:
Quote
SullyQuindarius 17 points 9 hours ago
Alright, let's see what Derek Smart says about this new development after all his gloating...
I can't wait to see his reaction when the whole thing gets dropped haha.
I suppose the best that CIG can hope for is to kick this into the long grass and hope everyone forgets about it.
Anyone fancy a new concept sale (maybe some sort of walking battlemech :) )?
Post by: DemonInvestor on January 06, 2018, 05:59:09 PM
Points to note so far for me:
- Lawyer argues RSI is no part of said contract and under no contractual obligation towards CryTek.
- RSI seems not to be part of 3rd parties allowed insight into the source code in said contract
Wonder why their lawyer seemingly didn't adress this.
- Termination of contract forces licensee to delete every last crytek code-snippet + usage of LY = Chaos.
- Also seemingly no written info on cooperation regarding Kickstarter, or a smaller fee for any reason.
(edit)
- and lastly; first release = reaching 500k alpha users
(/edit)
So still a mixed bag imho.
Post by: Bubba on January 07, 2018, 05:14:13 AM
Again, I am not a lawyer, and this ain't advice.
At the end, the Ortwin-baiting worked pretty well, especially since, as has pointed out (and as I understand it), Ortwin's failure to recuse himself is not itself an actionable cause. The defendants insist that the statements of fact (called "allegations" in the response) regarding Ortwin and Jones' history with the plaintiff and defendants and which are left in the FAC should be removed as being damaging and having no bearing on the lawsuit.
That now gives the plaintiffs perfectly good grounds to explain why those statements of fact are relevant to the complaint, especially as regards intentionality: "this has nothing to do with the belligerent lack of collegiality on the part of defendants' counsel, your honor..." Now let's talk about what that waiver does and doesn't cover, and how it might apply to the GLA.
So too with the comments on the plaintiff's alleged attempt to hide the GLA from the court. If the plaintiff really wanted to try the case in the court of public opinion, they would have published immediately the document in question. The GLA substantiates pretty well the complaint.
The claim that the recital included reference to two games "Space Citizen" and "Squadron 42", "together hereafter the 'Game'" means that the license covers two separately-marketed games is highly problematic.
First, because nowhere in the body do I see an explicit incorporation of the recital. Second, to the contrary, the first section of the body concerns definitions, and "Game" is pretty clearly defined as included "Star Citizen" and "Squadron 42" as "Features". There's also the killer clause:
Quote
For the avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately, and not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client, e.g., a fleet battle RTS sold and marketed as a separate, standalone PC game that does not interact with the main Star Citizen game (as opposed to an add-on / DLC to the Game).;Third, in practice, CIG/RSI treated SQ42 + SC as a single game until a certain point, when they decided to market them (and sell them) separately.
Again, from my non-lawyer perspective (although some might call me an expert in diplomatics), I don't see how the recital can trump the body, especially since it would be hard to the defendants to claim that they were always planning on marketing two separate games.
The best part about this is that, the good ol' counterargument from the start "well, either they agreed to license CryEngine for two games, or Squadron 42, as a separate game with a separate engine" doesn't work: they agreed to license CryEngine for one game, including in that game both SC and S42.
The same thing for their "exclusivity" defense. The defense seems to be claiming that, when CryTek granted CIG the license "to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game and develop the Game", this means that CryTek gave CIG the right to be the only ones who implement CryEngine for Star Citizen. The right to work on Star Citizen code is not a right that CryTek can concede. CIG and CIG alone gets to decide that. So "exclusively" has to refer to embedding CryEngine at the exclusion of other things. What other things? That's a little vague, and Exhibit 1 would have to be called upon. Unfortunately, for CIG/RSI, it would be trivial to show that Lumberyard meets their criteria of "exclusively".
Finally, if RSI is not involved, what's its role in this? If by actions and deeds it is involved and is controlled by the same persons, maybe it's time to see how well all these separate entities hold up to scrutiny?
Post by: N0mad on January 07, 2018, 08:13:03 AM
Maybe when CIG were talking about refractoring all the code, what they really meant was changing all the variables and method names to make it look less like CryEngine just in case it ever got to court. Although I don't see that stopping Skadden from arguing that it's still the same code.
I can't wait to see Skadden's response to CIG - does anyone know when we might expect to see this?
Furthermore, it would be interesting to know how much of the core libraries (ie. CryEngine) remain the same when they switched to Lumberyard? I'd wager, all of it.
CIG are screwed.
Post by: jwh1701 on January 07, 2018, 08:24:53 AM
I can't wait to see Skadden's response to CIG - does anyone know when we might expect to see this?
Furthermore, it would be interesting to know how much of the core libraries (ie. CryEngine) remain the same when they switched to Lumberyard? I'd wager, all of it.
CIG are screwed.
Having given this some more thought (and less tired and more sober). Never mind the specifics of the GLA and meaning of exclusivity to use CryEngine - even if they were free to switch to another engine, the question will be asked: have they? I can see the central allegation being that they haven't switched engine at all, they just took all their CryEngine work and added a few Amazon libraries and claimed to have switched Engine. They were still using the same CryEngine core as before, therefore the GLA should still apply. Thus they intentionally broke it.
I can't wait to see Skadden's response to CIG - does anyone know when we might expect to see this?
Furthermore, it would be interesting to know how much of the core libraries (ie. CryEngine) remain the same when they switched to Lumberyard? I'd wager, all of it.
I suspect the same but Chris Roberts clearly stated they removed everything from crytek in two days with two engineers. So far he has been a shinning example of how to run a successful crowd funded game and would not tell us any untruths. (sarcasm)
(https://s26.postimg.org/p26sh5we1/star_citzen_two_days_lumberyard.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Post by: StanTheMan on January 07, 2018, 10:43:08 AM
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html)
It is sometimes difficult for decent, pretty moral, reasonably intelligent fair minded people to get their head round how scummy, down right negligent and perverse some people actually are.
Sure we can recognise the scumbag that looks like a scumbag but we give far too much benefit of the doubt to others less obviously so and it often takes a lot of evidence to change our minds.
Derek's absolutely right to call these people "scum".
I have been involved in self representing myself in court for many years and I recognise the games being played here as well as having a pretty good idea of what the outcome is going to be.
Croberts and Ortwin are going to be dragged kicking and screaming to a settlement, court and/or bankruptcy.
Shitizens will cheer them on the way because they are still giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Post by: Andrew on January 07, 2018, 02:58:02 PM
So my common-sense, non-lawyer guess is: They are NOT forced to use CryEngine exclusively. Therefore the switch to Lumberyard is legit. However I'd also guess that it will be incredibly hard to prove they really switched in this case with Lumberyard and CryEngine being identical to a degree. So if Crytek argues they didn't actually switch ... that may work for or against them.
Since SC and SQ42 are summarily called "the game" it stands to reason that splitting them into two games is NOT legit. So there may be another 1.85 mio € bill incoming if they have to pay a second license. That should be painful for them but over all a non-issue given what we know about their financialy. If what Derek suspects about their finances is true however... not so easy.
Last guess: Crytek knows or strongly suspects they do not want to go into discovery. There has never been a trial where that didn't cause a stirr in the press for some of the materials that become public (Activision vs. West/Zampella for example). So I guess that Crytek can force them into settlement if they survive the motion to dismiss and given some of the complexities it seems likely that they will.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on January 07, 2018, 04:11:51 PM
Post by: N0mad on January 07, 2018, 04:25:10 PM
Post by: Spunky Munkee on January 07, 2018, 05:08:13 PM
CIG is screwed in so many ways.
I can see that in the end Chris Robbers will cry that his BDSSE was taken down by Crytek and the hater goons but we coulda been a contenda.
Next year he will start another crowdfunding drive. Lets see, outer space, ships, mocap, 1000 universes, alien slave women...
Post by: Aya Reiko on January 07, 2018, 10:40:55 PM
Post by: Andrew on January 08, 2018, 07:03:07 AM
CIG got a deeply discounted license to use Crytek and agreed to prominently display Crytek's logo in all SC splash screens and advertising. They were tied to Crytek and to bolster that point CIG was forbidden to work on any game using a competing engine for a period of 2 years. Sounds like a serious exclusive deal tying CIG to Crytek.
Crytek CLAIMS they got some sort of discount. Does 1.85 Mio Euros look like a big-time discount? Not sure. As Derek said: Usually there are royalties included in these contracts. Crytek probably did not believe in a big success and opted for upfront payment.
The other point you refer to I think you misread. IIRC they are forbidden to create an ENGINE for 2 yrs. So Crytek is ensuring that they are do not study their code and then turn around and develop a competing engine.
Here's a livestream from the same lawyer who examined the original complaint by Crytek and he concludes that Cryteks claim may actually get dismissed:
Post by: dsmart on January 08, 2018, 08:58:03 AM
Crytek CLAIMS they got some sort of discount. Does 1.85 Mio Euros look like a big-time discount? Not sure. As Derek said: Usually there are royalties included in these contracts. Crytek probably did not believe in a big success and opted for upfront payment.
It doesn't work that way. Royalties are calculated based on gross or net. I am sure that they calculated this, then CIG opted to pay up front as it was cheaper. And they made the right call because, well, they would still be paying royalties on $175M raised.
Quote
The other point you refer to I think you misread. IIRC they are forbidden to create an ENGINE for 2 yrs. So Crytek is ensuring that they are do not study their code and then turn around and develop a competing engine.
That 2yrs only kicks in after termination of the GLA.
Quote
Here's a livestream from the same lawyer who examined the original complaint by Crytek and he concludes that Cryteks claim may actually get dismissed:
He dropped the ball on this one. As a Star Citizen backer, it makes sense that he would want to pander to Shitizens for views. He spent more time reason the docs we already did, than offering any reasonable opinion.
For one thing, an attorney would never - ever - look at a case and call it a slam dunk. That's what courts are for. He said that if he were the judge, he would rule in favor of CIG. This after not even reading the important key points of the GLA which Crytek was alleging have been breached.
So of course, once again, Shitizens who are used to raising their hopes, only to see them dashed time and time again, are latching onto that bullshit.
Once the judge rules on the MtD on Feb 9th, and which we fully expect that she will rule against CIG, we'll see their reaction.
Post by: helimoth on January 08, 2018, 09:47:12 AM
Post by: Kyrt on January 08, 2018, 11:20:38 AM
He said that if he were the judge, he would rule in favor of CIG. This after not even reading the important key points of the GLA which Crytek was alleging have been breached.
To be fair, he probably read the GLA and other stuff before making the video. And while I think he may be overstating the strength of CIGs case, there is still that is open to judicial interpretation.
Having said that, he did seem surprised at the damage indemnification clause.
Post by: Aya Reiko on January 08, 2018, 12:45:44 PM
Once the judge rules on the MtD on Feb 9th, and which we fully expect that she will rule against Crytek, we'll see their reaction.I assume you meant rule against CiG on the MtD matter.
About how long should we expect this case to go on? Epic v Silicon Knights went on for nearly 5 years from initial filing to final ruling. Zenimax v OR took over 2 and a half years to resolve.
Post by: StanTheMan on January 08, 2018, 02:10:22 PM
To be fair, he probably read the GLA and other stuff before making the video. And while I think he may be overstating the strength of CIGs case, there is still that is open to judicial interpretation.
Having said that, he did seem surprised at the damage indemnification clause.
When it comes down to it ......there isn't much analysis in his video. He doesn't strike me as though he has read it beforehand ( eg the way he comments on Autodesk being in it)
If it is as clear cut as he seems to suggest .. why are Skadden pursuing it ?
How likely is it that a judge would dismiss such a case at this stage ? For my money judges don't like to dismiss things unless there is absolutely solid ground to do so.
How many judges are sufficiently up on game contract law to confidently dismiss a case like this at near enough first pass ?
Quote
Epic v Silicon Knights went on for nearly 5 years from initial filing to final ruling. Zenimax v OR took over 2 and a half years to resolve.
And yet our friend French here believes this is going to be dismissed....pretty strong position to take .. but what does he actually have at stake by making it ?
Post by: dsmart on January 08, 2018, 02:26:41 PM
I assume you meant rule against CiG on the MtD matter.
About how long should we expect this case to go on? Epic v Silicon Knights went on for nearly 5 years from initial filing to final ruling. Zenimax v OR took over 2 and a half years to resolve.
Yeah that was a typo.
These cases can go on for years, depending whether or not there is room for settlement. I personally feel that there is plenty of room for it to be settled. Especially since I don't believe that RSI/CIG wants any of their shit in discovery, let alone putting their people through depositions.
Post by: Kyrt on January 08, 2018, 02:31:37 PM
When it comes down to it ......there isn't much analysis in his video. He doesn't strike me as though he has read it beforehand ( eg the way he comments on Autodesk being in it)
He mentioned that he would talk about a couple of issues "later" as they were more relevant then. That indicates he did some study of the entire document before making the video.
Quote
If it is as clear cut as he seems to suggest .. why are Skadden pursuing it ?
A: They made a mistake.
B: He made a mistake.
C: Skadden were paid to do it and took the money.
Quote
How likely is it that a judge would dismiss such a case at this stage ? For my money judges don't like to dismiss things unless there is absolutely solid ground to do so.
CryTek suing the wrong company could be suitable grounds for dismissal, but would seem to be a delaying tactic. Given that they are all interlinked bodies working on different aspects of the same project with the same owners/mangers/people involved, the judge could also decide that Skadden are right.
Quote
How many judges are sufficiently up on game contract law to confidently dismiss a case like this at near enough first pass ?
Don't think that is relevant at this stage. Just whether CIGs analysis makes sense.
Post by: Narrenbart on January 08, 2018, 04:07:26 PM
Quote
/*Basically in Germany you can not sell a copyright you can only sell the right to distribute, sell and stuff but the copyright holder will never change (unlike in america) and Cryengine has been created in germany
* All or portions of this file Copyright (c) Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates or
* its licensors.
*
* For complete copyright and license terms please see the LICENSE at the root of this
* distribution (the "License"). All use of this software is governed by the License,
* or, if provided, by the license below or the license accompanying this file. Do not
* remove or modify any license notices. This file is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
*
*/
// Original file Copyright Crytek GMBH or its affiliates, used under license.
Post by: Backer42 on January 08, 2018, 04:55:57 PM
On SA there is the Code Copyright thing again.Basically in Germany you can not sell a copyright you can only sell the right to distribute, sell and stuff but the copyright holder will never change (unlike in america) and Cryengine has been created in germanyWhile this is true, it doesn't really affect the case.
I've some shitizens spreading fake news that CryTek sold their entire CryEngine IP to Amazon. This is of course BS, because that would mean that CryTek would lose all rights to use their own engine. True is: CT licensed a specific older version of CryEngine to Amazon with the rights modify and sub-license it. However it's still CryTeks IP and copyright still applies.
Post by: StanTheMan on January 08, 2018, 05:47:15 PM
He mentioned that he would talk about a couple of issues "later" as they were more relevant then. That indicates he did some study of the entire document before making the video.
Not good enough. Read the whole thing and analyse it in depth..or he didnt do enough to do the thing justice.
A: They made a mistake.
B: He made a mistake.
C: Skadden were paid to do it and took the money.
Sure and lawyers do make plenty of mistakes (or appear to). IME they often say little and can appear to hide behind silences to "explain" their position, but you still have to go with their professional judgement of a situation more often than not
Skadden could be said to have too much face to lose if this case gets kicked out before it has really started. It is one thing to lose another to get the "paperwork" this wrong...
CryTek suing the wrong company could be suitable grounds for dismissal, but would seem to be a delaying tactic. Given that they are all interlinked bodies working on different aspects of the same project with the same owners/mangers/people involved, the judge could also decide that Skadden are right.
Sure but again ..did Skadden really make such a Rookie error ?
Don't think that is relevant at this stage. Just whether CIGs analysis makes sense.
I say it because I think it is far easier for a judge to allow a case to continue and let the parties shed light on the matter than to have the balls to dismiss it so early on. Judges ime may "try" by banging heads together and aggressively questioning one side or the other to make the case to continue but IME they just need a good enough reason to continue the affair - because after all these opening stages are not meant to be a presentation of the whole case including all the evidence and arguments from both sides.
Judges have a lot of discretion and for reasons stated above ...i wouldn't bet on them kicking the case out. Space citizen a mistake ...why not RSI instead of CIG also a mistake..?
Post by: Meowz on January 08, 2018, 09:47:21 PM
Post by: dsmart on January 09, 2018, 05:44:15 AM
Will Crytek get a chance to reply to the MtD before a judge ruling?
Yes. That's the reply we are now waiting for.
Post by: Andrew on January 09, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
Sure but again ..did Skadden really make such a Rookie error ?
Maybe it is a trial-run? Sue the wrong company and force them to argue a motion to dismiss and show their hand a bit. Then sue the correct one afterwards? I'm sure there's a lot of little tricks to that kind of stuff. And they MUST have reason to go after a different company than stated in the contract.
Post by: Backer42 on January 09, 2018, 06:58:05 AM
Maybe it is a trial-run? Sue the wrong company and force them to argue a motion to dismiss and show their hand a bit. Then sue the correct one afterwards? I'm sure there's a lot of little tricks to that kind of stuff. And they MUST have reason to go after a different company than stated in the contract.Maybe because RSI sits on the money? There must be a reason, why CIG got all the Kickstarter funds, but RSI is the company who pays the refunds.
Post by: jwh1701 on January 09, 2018, 07:09:44 AM
Post by: jwh1701 on January 09, 2018, 07:27:58 AM
News Cartridge after reviewing the lawsuit states Crytek is reaching for the stars.
Post by: jwh1701 on January 09, 2018, 07:34:02 AM
Post by: StanTheMan on January 09, 2018, 08:02:52 AM
Full of themselves and full of shite.
Post by: jwh1701 on January 09, 2018, 08:16:08 AM
Posted by: StanTheMan
« on: Today at 08:02:52 AM »
All these YouTube experts
Yep I have trouble that they never see any red flags, I suspect some of it has to due with income.
Post by: StanTheMan on January 09, 2018, 10:33:54 AM
Posted by: StanTheMan
« on: Today at 08:02:52 AM »
All these YouTube experts
Yep I have trouble that they never see any red flags, I suspect some of it has to due with income.
They are stupid people.
Excusable if they were 18 years old with the naivety of youth...but they are not... they are wasters full of self importance with shit for brains and no integrity.
The sad thing is they are influencing people..a lot of them children..
Broadcasters in developed Western countries had standards they had to adhere to or they were taken off the air by governments.. these cretins are a law unto themselves and spread crap and crappy thinking...
The modern pulpit ...
Post by: N0mad on January 09, 2018, 10:46:23 AM
These guys have all decided that the case is dead and Crytek are finished. No room for doubt, end of conversation. Now, myself, I have no idea what the judge will decide, none of us do - but any dissenters from the established consensus that CIG have already won are downvoted or trolled out of the forums.
Right now I really hope that the case continues, not necessarily to see Chris being sued (he's used to it by now anyway) but just to see these arrogant idiots proven wrong.
Post by: justme on January 09, 2018, 10:53:15 AM
the get paid, to do these videos. many of their fans are asking all the time to do so,
so customers decide ;) boredgamer said, that this is just his opinion, and he doesn't
know anything about law or copyright and contracts... so far so good.
i needed to do some seminars, about international contracts and copyrights, but honestly,
this is not my business, so i'm not able to give a solid opinion about that.
also i'm not for one side. if this is right, what crytek claims, they need to fight for their rights,
and who cares about these cultists, claiming not to buy another cryengine game. most of them
would do.
what happens, if the courts follows cig answer, but as i noticed, they missed some points. will it be
stopped then, or just reduced?
Post by: StanTheMan on January 09, 2018, 02:11:56 PM
oredgamer said, that this is just his opinion, and he doesn't
know anything about law or copyright and contracts... so far so good.
Well no ! Nothing good about it - we have to take the whole of what he is doing and not allow him and his ilk off the hook like that.
If he has no knowledge of the subject matter, why does he feel the need to express an opinion on YouTube ?
As I said, no integrity, no brains (and no content !)
Quote
what happens, if the courts follows cig answer, but as i noticed, they missed some points. will it be
stopped then, or just reduced?
Read this Derek's comment on this submission.
Post by: dsmart on January 09, 2018, 04:53:01 PM
All these YouTube experts.
Full of themselves and full of shite.
As I have been telling people, this is all noise. Like us, NONE of them are lawyers. So now we are just waiting to read the judge's ruling on the MtG on Feb 9 as that's going to be the determining factor as to which of Crytek's claims have merit.
The CIG response was basically a PR move. IMO it has no merits, and their case isn't stronger than Crytek's otherwise they won't be putting up a bullshit re-definition of exclusively, while not even addressing the other causes of action in the complaint.
Post by: DemonInvestor on January 09, 2018, 11:30:44 PM
As I have been telling people, this is all noise. Like us, NONE of them are lawyers. So now we are just waiting to read the judge's ruling on the MtG on Feb 9 as that's going to be the determining factor as to which of Crytek's claims have merit.
The CIG response was basically a PR move. IMO it has no merits, and their case isn't stronger than Crytek's otherwise they won't be putting up a bullshit re-definition of exclusively, while not even addressing the other causes of action in the complaint.
Yeah i agree.
They basically said 2 things - RSI shouldn't be defending itself; CIG wasn't forced to use the licence.
Which didn't adress in any way if CIG paid all fees so far nor that they might have given third parties access to source code. Nor that the GLA mentions the usage of other engines.
Post by: justme on January 10, 2018, 05:16:22 AM
Well no ! Nothing good about it - we have to take the whole of what he is doing and not allow him and his ilk off the hook like that.
If he has no knowledge of the subject matter, why does he feel the need to express an opinion on YouTube ?
As I said, no integrity, no brains (and no content !)
Read this Derek's comment on this submission.
You missed my intention of it ;)
I agree with you. That's why i wrote,
that even with my "professional basic knowledge" i wouldn't do it.
Post by: Wipeout on January 12, 2018, 02:31:30 AM
Post by: dsmart on January 12, 2018, 07:01:38 AM
My opinion on this, after doing some research on various stuff, is that things are looking better for CIG on some stuff, and looking better for Crytek on others. I will not be surprised if all Crytek gets is the stuff related to Bugsmashers and CIG not giving optimizations/bug fixes.
Such as?
Post by: Wipeout on January 12, 2018, 07:57:40 PM
Such as?
These 2 lawyers said it best
The second video was supplemental to the research I did and I did a lot of research, the second video was released today and it further enforced my conclusion, though that first video now makes me question the stuff related giving bug/optimization patches to Crytek, and I do not know enough about programming language, nor did any comparisons, to have an opinion on the bugsmashers stuff (it doesn't help that Crytek was not specific in what videos actually shown that they said it did).
Post by: Spunky Munkee on January 12, 2018, 09:15:52 PM
Aside from the fact that apparently Crytek did licence it's engine to Amazon to create Lumberyard. If Crytek could licence to Amazon then it's "exclusive" agreement did not hogtie Crytek but rather ties CIG into using Cryengine exclusively, and ties CIG to the agreement not to build any games with any competing engine for 2 years after they conclude using Cryengine.
CIG's argument makes no sense. If Ortwin sold the contract that he claims exists to Crytek then he really did fuck them hard.
Post by: Wipeout on January 12, 2018, 09:42:33 PM
Why would Crytek give exclusive rights to use Cryengine to CIG? It makes NO sense. It flies in the face of the supposed agreement to prominently display the Crytek logo. Why bother advertizing for Crytek if Crytek cannot licence its product any longer to any other party. They would be out of business.
Aside from the fact that apparently Crytek did licence it's engine to Amazon to create Lumberyard. If Crytek could licence to Amazon then it's "exclusive" agreement did not hogtie Crytek but rather ties CIG into using Cryengine exclusively, and ties CIG to the agreement not to build any games with any competing engine for 2 years after they conclude using Cryengine.
CIG's argument makes no sense. If Ortwin sold the contract that he claims exists to Crytek then he really did fuck them hard.
From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG. It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game". Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html
So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"
Since it is in the grant section, and it calls it a "right", there is no obligation, there is no restriction, and CIG can exercise that right or not it is their choice and it is not an obligation.
Post by: Aya Reiko on January 13, 2018, 12:24:40 AM
From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG. It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game". Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html
So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"
Since it is in the grant section, and it calls it a "right", there is no obligation, there is no restriction, and CIG can exercise that right or not it is their choice and it is not an obligation.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 12:28:47 AM
Post by: Aya Reiko on January 13, 2018, 12:38:12 AM
Would be nice if you actually gave an actual put some real effort into rebuttal instead of posting something as trollish as that.Because what you wrote is so beyond idiotic, there is nothing of value worth replying to.
Businesses DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. EVER.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 12:42:19 AM
Because what you wrote is so beyond idiotic, there is nothing of value worth replying to.
Businesses DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. EVER.
I posted references, gave a reason for it.
And yes, business do work that way, and I have shown a link that provides back up to what I said.
Post by: N0mad on January 13, 2018, 12:46:16 AM
Don't mind me sitting here with my popcorn.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 01:00:04 AM
Ever since Serendipity left / got banned this forum has been a bit devoid of argument and name calling.
Don't mind me sitting here with my popcorn.
Well I am done with him unless he provides a better argument.
I have no love for the game, rather I find the whole situation fascinating. I only pledged to get the full experience out of this whole situation. If a game actually manages to come out of this, then it will be pleasant surprise, but I am not expecting it at all, I lean more to that everything will be shut down before they get anything completed at worst and at the best they'll release something mediocre compared to what it was supposed to be, and give the worst scenario the highest probability. But that doesn't mean that I will automatically be against CIG on everything that comes to them, I'll put research into it, find relevant opinions, learn something new, to come to the conclusions that I do.
I do give my feedback on game development, just in case that my "best" scenario does actually happen, then at least I can feel I put in some feedback that they may or may not have listed to. Though they have not listed to suggestion I made so far, lol.
Post by: Kyrt on January 13, 2018, 02:17:06 AM
From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG. It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game". Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html
So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"
But in this case, it isn't describing an exclusive right...but a license to exclusive embed CryEngine into a game.
CryTek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game.
CryTek can't give this license to anyone else because they don't own the IP. Nor is the interpretation that this simply means only CIG can develop the Game with CryEngine because that same right is addressed in 2.6.
Section 10.7 also seems to deal with the "protect CIG" interpretation you suggest.....and also seems to negate, to a degree, the no damage clause.
Barring a legalistic definition, the clause in question seems readily understandable.
So long as CryTek want to use CryEngine, then no other engine can be used.
The other side of the question is...does it have to use CryEngine?
The GLA in turn reads as if ONLY CryEngine can be embedded....a harsh condition, perhaps but one that CIG agreed to.
However, besides legalistic interpretations of the clause, the other aspect is "intent". We don't know what supporting evidence either side will bring to the case.
The simple fact is this is a GLA that appears to have no termination date, no major support from CryTek or obligation upon it, requires CIG to display...prominently...CryTeks logos and which requires CIG to share optimizations and bug fixes while requiring it to protect CryTeks IP.
CIG got a cheap engine out of this deal...and it was smart to sign on...but this is not really a document that suggests an agreement between equals. CryTek were doing CIG a favour and it shows.
The only weird aspect is the damage indemnification clause. It seems weird that CryTek would agree to waive damages except for an intentional breach. ...especially since other sections seem to indicate monetary damages are a possibility.
I wonder if Section 10.7 might be applicable as a way to sidestep that damage waiver?
As an aside...it looks like 7.1 does confirm the GLA is subject to an NDA. CIG might have breached that by effectively putting the GLA onto the public domain.
Post by: Resin on January 13, 2018, 02:27:14 AM
From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG. It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game". Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html
So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"
Since it is in the grant section, and it calls it a "right", there is no obligation, there is no restriction, and CIG can exercise that right or not it is their choice and it is not an obligation.
Still doesn't make any sense. Why put something like that in contract when Crytek is in no position to give anyone else right to use their engine to make Star Citizen.
Why would it impossible to add restrictive elements to grants? Crytek granted CIG the right to use their engine for the game if they use that and only that engine.
But dunno how that will interpreted. Your suggestion of interpretation doesn't make any sense. Why put something in contract you don't possess any control to do in first place? Why would it be there?
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 02:43:15 AM
Still doesn't make any sense. Why put something like that in contract when Crytek is in no position to give anyone else right to use their engine to make Star Citizen.
Why would it impossible to add restrictive elements to grants? Crytek granted CIG the right to use their engine for the game if they use that and only that engine.
But dunno how that will interpreted. Your suggestion of interpretation doesn't make any sense. Why put something in contract you don't possess any control to do in first place? Why would it be there?
Well, for an example of where a contract states something that is already protected by laws anyways: Every lease I sign for an apartment include stuff that is already protected by law anyways, but yet it is still in the contract. So apparently lawyers still feel this stuff needs to be said in a contract.
Anyways, my interpretation comes from the link that I provided, plus many more that I found during my search, and then these 2 lawyers confirmed what I already came to a conclusion for through my own research.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 03:09:16 AM
But in this case, it isn't describing an exclusive right...but a license to exclusive embed CryEngine into a game.
CryTek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game.
CryTek can't give this license to anyone else because they don't own the IP. Nor is the interpretation that this simply means only CIG can develop the Game with CryEngine because that same right is addressed in 2.6.
Section 10.7 also seems to deal with the "protect CIG" interpretation you suggest.....and also seems to negate, to a degree, the no damage clause.
Barring a legalistic definition, the clause in question seems readily understandable.
So long as CryTek want to use CryEngine, then no other engine can be used.
The other side of the question is...does it have to use CryEngine?
The GLA in turn reads as if ONLY CryEngine can be embedded....a harsh condition, perhaps but one that CIG agreed to.
However, besides legalistic interpretations of the clause, the other aspect is "intent". We don't know what supporting evidence either side will bring to the case.
The simple fact is this is a GLA that appears to have no termination date, no major support from CryTek or obligation upon it, requires CIG to display...prominently...CryTeks logos and which requires CIG to share optimizations and bug fixes while requiring it to protect CryTeks IP.
CIG got a cheap engine out of this deal...and it was smart to sign on...but this is not really a document that suggests an agreement between equals. CryTek were doing CIG a favour and it shows.
The only weird aspect is the damage indemnification clause. It seems weird that CryTek would agree to waive damages except for an intentional breach. ...especially since other sections seem to indicate monetary damages are a possibility.
I wonder if Section 10.7 might be applicable as a way to sidestep that damage waiver?
As an aside...it looks like 7.1 does confirm the GLA is subject to an NDA. CIG might have breached that by effectively putting the GLA onto the public domain.
You miss quoted what it says:
to exclusively embed Cryengine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sub licensable pursuant to sec 2.6
It states it as a "right", in the grant section. They are not obligated to exercise a right granted to them.
it also states
to exclusively manufacture, market, promote, sell, license, publish, and exploit the Game in any way which right shall be freely sub-licensable.
This means they can sell the "Game" in any way. And the "Game" has been defined as
"for the game currently entitles "Space Citizen: and it's related space fight game "Squadron 42", together hereafter the "Game"
10.7 is interesting because it kind of falls in line about what I am saying that 2.1.2 is to protect CIG from Crytek trying to license the "Game" to other people, cause in 10.7 there is a clause in saying "nor shall Crytek be entitled to enjoing the publishing or other exploitation of the Game," so apparently there is a need to to show if Crytek has the right to license the "Game" to other people. At least that is what it looks like to me.
Up until today I would have completely agreed with you on them breaking the NDA, provided that #1 below was not considered as breaking the NDA on Crytek's part. I saw this earlier on the Star Citizen's refund reddit and the guy makes a good point, which is #2 on the list, and I'll quote him.
As far as 7.1.
2 things:
1) Crytek revealed details of the GLA to the public first, they put it in their complaint. That can very well open it up for CIG to also use the GLA in their response since it was Crytek that broke the NDA first.
But #1 may not even matter because of this
Federal law allows to break NDA when it comes to tort suit, which this suit is under tort.
"The existence of a privilege to disclose another's trade secret depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, including the nature of the information, the purpose of the disclosure, and the means by which the actor acquired the information. A privilege is likely to be recognized, for example, in connection with the disclosure of information that is relevant to public health or safety, or to the commission of a crime or tort, or to other matters of substantial public concern." https://tinyurl.com/y84nkglb
I really don't care which way this lawsuit goes, but it has been interesting searching the internet for my research, looking at other links people provide, getting analysis from real lawyers. I find it a great chapter in the SC Drama Show, where the show will most likely lead to everyone on CIGs side being, figuratively, dead in the end, haha
Post by: Kyrt on January 13, 2018, 04:52:32 AM
You miss quoted what it says:
to exclusively embed Cryengine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sub licensable pursuant to sec 2.66
It states it as a "right", in the grant section. They are not obligated to exercise a right granted to them.
Which could also be read as simply requiring any third party sub contractor also needs to only use CryEngine.
Further, some "rights" can be de facto obligations because terms and other clauses tender it non feasible to do otherwise. Obligations can also be implied and can arise from legal rights.
I could still make a case for saying this is an obligation die to its wording, but the reality is that there may very well be a legal/technical definition of "exclusively"....not to mention emails and other supporting evidence for either side...which means there is a case you be decided.
That you and I have different interpretations of this clause shows the truth of what I've been saying. That this will need to be decided by a judge.
However...even if this is decided to be a right in the manner you suggest, CIGs problem is that they appear to have merged in LY code rather than remove CE coding, replace it with LY code and recompile. I can't day if that is the case or not but some people state they have decompiled 3.0 and CE code is still present.
If so, that breaks all sorts of clauses...in LY as well IIRC.
Quote
And the "Game" has been defined as
"for the game currently entitles "Space Citizen: and it's related space fight game "Squadron 42", together hereafter the "Game"
Two games...marketed, promoted and sold as a single entity and not as two separate standalone games. Ref...Exhibit 2 of the GLA.
Quote
10.7 is interesting because it kind of falls in line about what I am saying that 2.1.2 is to protect CIG from Crytek trying to license the "Game" to other people, cause in 10.7 there is a clause in saying "nor shall Crytek be entitled to enjoing the publishing or other exploitation of the Game," so apparently there is a need to to show if Crytek has the right to license the "Game" to other people. At least that is what it looks like to me.
All that is doing is setting limits..namely that CryTek cannot expect to be part of the games lifecycle simply because it provided the engine and that whatever is awarded, it doesn't get the game. Nothing more. There is a clear reason for such a clause and it doesn't repeat previous clauses.
In short...CryTek can't get control of the game as part of awarded damages.
Quote
Up until today I would have completely agreed with you on them breaking the NDA, provided that #1 below was not considered as breaking the NDA on Crytek's part. I saw this earlier on the Star Citizen's refund reddit and the guy makes a good point, which is #2 on the list, and I'll quote him.
There is a difference between selective quoting to justify the levied charges and facilitate the legal process and needlessly putting the entire commercially sensitive document into the public domain.
Quote
But #1 may not even matter because of this
Federal law allows to break NDA when it comes to tort suit, which this suit is under tort.
A factor which would justify CryTeks selective quoting and not CIGs wholesale publication.
Post by: N0mad on January 13, 2018, 05:09:56 AM
1) The contract will be deemed to be ambiguously worded & Ortwin should get blamed for that - I hope it will be shown that his incompetence is partly the problem here OR, perhaps, he purposely made the wording ambiguous knowing that Crytek would agree to it and he'd find a way to wriggle out of the GLA at a later date
2) It will all depend on the intentions of the two parties at the time - which may be a good reason alone to have a jury to decide. There may well be supporting evidence which might clarify the meaning of the GLA as intended at the time (emails etc), maybe even evidence which is confidential and therefore not published on Pacer.
The Skadden response will be interesting. I don't think that they're stupid enough to purposely misinterpret the GLA without good reason. But who knows, this could have just been a fishing trip to see if CIG would settle and done by junior employees of the firm?
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 05:11:04 AM
Which could also be read as simply requiring any third party sub contractor also needs to only use CryEngine.
Further, some "rights" can be de facto obligations because terms and other clauses tender it non feasible to do otherwise. Obligations can also be implied and can arise from legal rights.
I could still make a case for saying this is an obligation die to its wording, but the reality is that there may very well be a legal/technical definition of "exclusively"....not to mention emails and other supporting evidence for either side...which means there is a case you be decided.
That you and I have different interpretations of this clause shows the truth of what I've been saying. That this will need to be decided by a judge.
However...even if this is decided to be a right in the manner you suggest, CIGs problem is that they appear to have merged in LY code rather than remove CE coding, replace it with LY code and recompile. I can't day if that is the case or not but some people state they have decompiled 3.0 and CE code is still present.
If so, that breaks all sorts of clauses...in LY as well IIRC.
Two games...marketed, promoted and sold as a single entity and not as two separate standalone games. Ref...Exhibit 2 of the GLA.
All that is doing is setting limits..namely that CryTek cannot expect to be part of the games lifecycle simply because it provided the engine and that whatever is awarded, it doesn't get the game. Nothing more. There is a clear reason for such a clause and it doesn't repeat previous clauses.
In short...CryTek can't get control of the game as part of awarded damages.
There is a difference between selective quoting to justify the levied charges and facilitate the legal process and needlessly putting the entire commercially sensitive document into the public domain.
A factor which would justify CryTeks selective quoting and not CIGs wholesale publication.
It makes sense there is CE code, cause Lumberyard is CE. So it comes at no surprise people find CE code in an engine based off of CE.
Exhibit 2 actually supports CIG's case;
It has 2 stipulations; For avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content being sold separately and not being access through the Star Citizen client, eg a Fleet battle RTS sold and marketed as a separate, standalone PC game that does not interact with the main Star Citizen game, as opposed to an add-on/DLC to the game.
Selling the 2 games separately, but still use the same game client and the 2 still interacting with each other would settle this stipulation. If Squadron 42 was being sold separately and did not use the same client and did not interact with SC then it would be against Exhibit 2.
So we have in the GLA that SQ42 and SC are shown as 2 games. That CIG can do what ever they want to sell and market the games. And that the only stipulation is that the 2 games need to use the same client and have some kind of interaction with each other.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 05:17:51 AM
Post by: Motto on January 13, 2018, 05:54:18 AM
and then these 2 lawyers confirmed what I already came to a conclusion for through my own research.
Well, guess what, you are all wrong.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 06:47:24 AM
Well, guess what, you are all wrong.Read the article I put in the media thread. That is the third law professional that puts things on CIGs side.
Looks like it is coming down to Crytek showing communication with CIG that proves the definitions are different than what the golden rule wound state , to swing this for Crytek, but if they don't have it, it found mean things stay in CIGs favor.
This will be interesting to see. I kind of want Crytek to have that kind of evidence to keep this drama going into the trial, but I would not be surprised if they don't.
Post by: DemonInvestor on January 13, 2018, 06:48:52 AM
It's neither 'exclusive license to' nor is it 'exclusivly in StarCitizen', but 'exclusively [use] CryEngine in'. And i guess this will lead to an argument in court if CIG and CryTek won't settle beforehand. So far i still would follow the general idea of exclusive licenses - but we might see what a judge will make of that.
But then again, i see a lot of potential problems.
2.4. - CIG isn't allowed to promote a different Engine - well how'd you read that in connection with their LY switch and what they told people about CryEngine?
2.2.2. + 2.5. + 2.6. - Where's the agreed statement for RSI or those dozen other other english companies that seemingly - judging by Foundry 42 inclusion in the respective third parties list - don't count as affiliates?
1.2. + 1.5. + 1.6. + 8.1. - the game under that definition seems to be already released, and not only logic but also the contract seem to indicate that no termination should occur during the commercial life of said product. So changing the engine in that period ... i don't know.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 07:03:22 AM
The problem with the exclusive is where it exactly was written.
It's neither 'exclusive license to' nor is it 'exclusivly in StarCitizen', but 'exclusively [use] CryEngine in'. And i guess this will lead to an argument in court if CIG and CryTek won't settle beforehand. So far i still would follow the general idea of exclusive licenses - but we might see what a judge will make of that.
But then again, i see a lot of potential problems.
2.4. - CIG isn't allowed to promote a different Engine - well how'd you read that in connection with their LY switch and what they told people about CryEngine?
2.2.2. + 2.5. + 2.6. - Where's the agreed statement for RSI or those dozen other other english companies that seemingly - judging by Foundry 42 inclusion in the respective third parties list - don't count as affiliates?
1.2. + 1.5. + 1.6. + 8.1. - the game under that definition seems to be already released, and not only logic but also the contract seem to indicate that no termination should occur during the commercial life of said product. So changing the engine in that period ... i don't know.
Only the actual CIG arms that have developers would need to be approved affiliates. For example RSI itself does not have any developers, therefore dies not need access to the codes. It would also be dependent on how eAch if thier offices are setup thst will determine if they need approval or not.
Post by: Kyrt on January 13, 2018, 07:12:53 AM
So we have in the GLA that SQ42 and SC are shown as 2 games.
That are collectively part of one package, that are sold and marketed and promoted as one game.
That was then.
Today S42 is being marketed and sold as a separate standalone game that doesn't require Star Citizen to run.
Post by: Motto on January 13, 2018, 07:20:17 AM
Post by: Kyrt on January 13, 2018, 07:23:34 AM
2.4. - CIG isn't allowed to promote a different Engine - well how'd you read that in connection with their LY switch and what they told people about CryEngine?
Not allowed to be in the business of...
Its a in compete clause
Quote
2.2.2. + 2.5. + 2.6. - Where's the agreed statement for RSI or those dozen other other english companies that seemingly - judging by Foundry 42 inclusion in the respective third parties list - don't count as affiliates?
While there is likely a reason F42 is there, 2.5 seems to cover the rest. Possibly there is dome quirk that prevents F42 meeting the definition of "affiliate"
Quote
1.2. + 1.5. + 1.6. + 8.1. - the game under that definition seems to be already released, and not only logic but also the contract seem to indicate that no termination should occur during the commercial life of said product. So changing the engine in that period ... i don't know.
It'd just defining some limits.
But yes....there is effectively no legal way for CIG to terminate this GLA. They could try a deliberate contract breach...but that would still have CryTek making the decision.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 07:30:09 AM
It is very simple. Crytek gave CIG the rights to use their engine for developing the game Star Citizen. They did that for a fee that was way, way lower than what the fee normally would have been. I don't know why Crytek did that, but Crytek didn't do that because they liked Ortwin and Chris. They gave the low fee in exchange for a couple of things. The prominent promoting of Crytek by CIG was one of those. Another one was the fact that CIG had to use Cryengine and only Cryengine to build the game. And that's the "exclusive" part of the contract. All other "explanations" or "interpretations" and what not are just stupid. They are from people who simply are not willing to see that CIG fucked up their contract with Crytek on so many levels that it is painfully embarrassing that they even tried to defend themselves.
Well 3 law professionals outside of the lawsuit seem to disagree with you, and yet no law professional outside of the suit to speak up in favor for Crytek.
I wish you were right because it would be great to see this go to court and have CIG lose to further this drama show for entertainment, but it looks like the likelihood of that happening is getting smaller and smaller and things are lokking good for CIG.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 07:32:23 AM
That are collectively part of one package, that are sold and marketed and promoted as one game.
That was then.
Today S42 is being marketed and sold as a separate standalone game that doesn't require Star Citizen to run.
How do you know it doesn't require Star Citizen client to run? Currently 2 modules that come with the SQ42 package requires SC client.
Post by: N0mad on January 13, 2018, 09:17:11 AM
Just a thought. I know this hasn't been mentioned by Crytek in their arguments but it could come up.
Post by: Kyrt on January 13, 2018, 10:33:36 AM
How do you know it doesn't require Star Citizen client to run? Currently 2 modules that come with the SQ42 package requires SC client.
Because it is being marketed and promoted and sold as a game that does not require Star Citizen.
Post by: Kyrt on January 13, 2018, 10:44:10 AM
..nd I'm fairly certain that CIG wanted to switch engines to avoid making further payments to Crytek (although that assumption may be proven wrong, they may have wanted access to Amazon's web services?).
The GLA has a royalty buyout and so they wouldn't be saving any money.
Given that, it seems likely the switch to Amazon was made so that they could gain access to AWS and could piggyback off Amazons work wrt networks and servers. Doing it themselves would mean hiring staff with that skillset and they apparently only have...or had...only six network engineers in the entire company.
Post by: Motto on January 13, 2018, 01:34:22 PM
Post by: jwh1701 on January 13, 2018, 02:17:20 PM
Chris took a gamble that Crytek wouldn't survive as a company so after they collapsed, he'd have their engine for himself without any further payments or issues whatsoever. Then Crytek survived. And then Chris realised he couldn't build the game he pitched, if he could build the game at all. And keeping it running would cost a fortune. But hey, look, Amazon has taken a license from Crtyek. And they're building on CryEngine too. So moving from our Cryengine to Amazon's Cryengine should be way easier than moving towards another completely different engine. And Amazon doesn't charge for the hosting too. So, that'll solve my problems for now and since we're sticking with Crytek in some way, they probably won't mind. And if they do, well, we're fucked anyway, so I'll burn that bridge the way I always burn all my bridges.
Post by: dsmart on January 13, 2018, 02:20:21 PM
I believe the switch to Lumberyard I feel were because of these reasons. They made the most sense.
1) On-going Lumberyard support without having to pay yearly support fees to Crytek
2) Ability to split SQ42 into a separate game without needing to buy another license from Crytek. And Crytek would have had no incentive to give them a royalty-free license given the history of the two companies, as well as the fact that they paid over $2M for a single game license back in 2012
3) Lumberyard is royalty-free
4) Lumberyard being a more advanced derivative of CryEngine, made it even more feasible to do
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 02:53:42 PM
Because it is being marketed and promoted and sold as a game that does not require Star Citizen.That does not mean it will not require the SC client, and currently it does need the SC client to play anything from the SQ42 package.
Post by: Motto on January 13, 2018, 03:13:48 PM
Post by: StanTheMan on January 13, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Well I am done with him unless he provides a better argument.
I have no love for the game, rather I find the whole situation fascinating. I only pledged to get the full experience out of this whole situation. If a game actually manages to come out of this, then it will be pleasant surprise, but I am not expecting it at all, I lean more to that everything will be shut down before they get anything completed at worst and at the best they'll release something mediocre compared to what it was supposed to be, and give the worst scenario the highest probability. But that doesn't mean that I will automatically be against CIG on everything that comes to them, I'll put research into it, find relevant opinions, learn something new, to come to the conclusions that I do.
I do give my feedback on game development, just in case that my "best" scenario does actually happen, then at least I can feel I put in some feedback that they may or may not have listed to. Though they have not listed to suggestion I made so far, lol.
How much research have you sonme into what being a competent Programme Manager involves and then holding Croberts to, I dont know .. at least 25% of that standard ?
Thats before we get into any other analysis of his character and behaviours on this.
Post by: StanTheMan on January 13, 2018, 05:20:56 PM
Chris took a gamble that Crytek wouldn't survive as a company so after they collapsed, he'd have their engine for himself without any further payments or issues whatsoever. Then Crytek survived. And then Chris realised he couldn't build the game he pitched, if he could build the game at all. And keeping it running would cost a fortune. But hey, look, Amazon has taken a license from Crtyek. And they're building on CryEngine too. So moving from our Cryengine to Amazon's Cryengine should be way easier than moving towards another completely different engine. And Amazon doesn't charge for the hosting too. So, that'll solve my problems for now and since we're sticking with Crytek in some way, they probably won't mind. And if they do, well, we're fucked anyway, so I'll burn that bridge the way I always burn all my bridges.
And whilst all that was going on Crytek were there waving at him saving, "hey we are still here, lets talk" .. Ortwin and Croberts said fuck off and so we are now here.
All this will come out when the judge decides what is right here and who has acted badly...that will inform their decision and the judge will be directed towards the cracks that will enable that decision to be made by the judge....
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 05:33:06 PM
How much research have you sonme into what being a competent Programme Manager involves and then holding Croberts to, I dont know .. at least 25% of that standard ?
Thats before we get into any other analysis of his character and behaviours on this.
I am not sure how your question is relevant to the discussion about the lawsuit.
Post by: Kyrt on January 13, 2018, 08:36:03 PM
That does not mean it will not require the SC client, and currently it does need the SC client to play anything from the SQ42 package.
You will be able to play it without buying the game game known as Star Citizen. By deginition, it will have to work without it.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 08:39:09 PM
You will be able to play it without buying the game game known as Star Citizen. By deginition, it will have to work without it.
Can you explain to me how to run the 2 modules that come with SQ42 without using the Star Citizen client?
The stipulation is that it uses the SC client, there is no reason to believe that it will not use the SC client.
Post by: Kyrt on January 13, 2018, 09:05:08 PM
Can you explain to me how to run the 2 modules that come with SQ42 without using the Star Citizen client?[/quoye]
They aren't S42QuoteThe stipulation is that it uses the SC client, there is no reason to believe that it will not use the SC client.
Then it wpuldn't be a standalone game.
Post by: Wipeout on January 13, 2018, 09:11:43 PM
Then it wpuldn't be a standalone game.
CIG doesn't call it "standalone"
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15189-Package-Split-Information
They call it ala carte options:
"Why split Squadron 42 and Star Citizen?
When we started Star Citizen’s crowdfunding campaign, the plan was that earlier backers would get a lower price on the Star Citizen starter package than those that backed later. The plan was to first gradually increase the price and then split up various modules for “a la carte options.” This gave backers who joined the project early on and helped get it off the ground an advantage. With the package split, we’re accomplishing this objective without increasing the amount of money needed to join the persistent universe. The ‘package split’ is the first introduction of the anticipated a la carte option: you can pick which part of the game you’re interested in, for now the single player campaign or the persistent universe, and then can choose whether or not to purchase the other module as an add-on."
Bold parts are important. Looks like to me this fulfills the stipulations set forth in Exhibit 2, which even includes selling addons as being allowed. It also fufills their right to market/sell the "Game" as they see fit.
They go on to say in that article:
Are Star Citizen and Squadron 42 still connected?
YES! The package split does not change the fact that Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are part of the same game universe, or the fact that the games are functionally connected. You will access Squadron 42 through the same game client. And your performance in Squadron 42 will still have an impact on your career in the persistent universe, whether you buy both segments together or if you choose to add one further down the line. Finally, you will receive access to Star Citizen’s Arena Commander with the “Squadron 42” pledge to practice your flying skills. We continue to see Squadron 42 and Star Citizen as two modules that make up a larger whole. While we know not everyone enjoys both single and multiplayer games, we would certainly encourage you to try both for the complete Star Citizen experience!
Again, showing that it fulfills the stipulations set forth in Exhibit 2.
Post by: dsmart on January 14, 2018, 05:31:00 AM
Again, showing that it fulfills the stipulations set forth in Exhibit 2.
The core of the issue is not that there is a separate module called Squadron 42, like there is Star Marine, Arena Commander etc. It's that they are SELLING IT AS A SEPARATE PRODUCT. How hard is this to understand? Whether or not the GLA allows them to do that, is up to the court to decide. In ALL software licensing agreements, the number of licenses depends on the license granted. Right now, if you licensed UE4, you get the engine free, but you pay $5 royalties upon release - forever. If you make one game, then split and sell it as two separate commercial products, you would end up paying 5% on royalties on each one.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS5MycfW0Acibcq.jpg)
And Exhibit 2 clearly defines the definition of GAME in that it INCLUDES 3 entities COLLECTIVELY, not SEPARATELY.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS5Myc3XUAISHdU.jpg)
It's as if you buy a bundle of 3 items on Amazon, but instead of receiving all 3, you receive 2, then the vendor decides to sell the other 1 separately. Or if a vendor gives a third-party the rights to sell a bundle of 3 of their items for $10, but the party decides to sell them separately at $5 each, thus breaching the agreement to sell them as a bundle.
Also...
What is a la carte? (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/%C3%A0%20la%20carte)
Quote
according to a menu or list that prices items separately
Post by: Wipeout on January 14, 2018, 05:43:21 AM
But you are right, it is for the courts to decide, but my feeling it will never go to the courts, and give high probability that the judge will dismiss some of the lawsuit, and the rest is settled out of court.. But I really want to see it go to court because crytek hopefully would have found evidence to show the intent is different than what the golden rule might show.
Post by: Resin on January 14, 2018, 08:22:25 AM
Exhibit 2 allows for add-ons/DLC. It Also states they cannot sell a game separately and does not use the SC client. SQ42 interacts with SC, it uses the same client, and it is sold as an add-on, which fulfils the terms of exhibit 2.How is it ”add-on” if you can buy only the ”add-on”?
But you are right, it is for the courts to decide, but my feeling it will never go to the courts, and give high probability that the judge will dismiss some of the lawsuit, and the rest is settled out of court.. But I really want to see it go to court because crytek hopefully would have found evidence to show the intent is different than what the golden rule might show.
Post by: dsmart on January 14, 2018, 10:02:34 AM
Exhibit 2 allows for add-ons/DLC. It Also states they cannot sell a game separately and does not use the SC client. SQ42 interacts with SC, it uses the same client, and it is sold as an add-on, which fulfils the terms of exhibit 2.
That's wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.
You DO know what a DLC is, right? I means it is an add-on to a main product.
SQ42 is NOT an add-on as it does NOT require Star Citizen for it to work. It doesn't matter if it is launched from the same launcher like Star Marine, Arena Commander or not. As long as it is stand-alone, and sold separately, it is not DLC.
Quote
But you are right, it is for the courts to decide, but my feeling it will never go to the courts,
It is already in court.
Quote
and give high probability that the judge will dismiss some of the lawsuit, and the rest is settled out of court..
The judge can't dismiss any part of the lawsuit. She can only agree to or deny parts of the MtD which pertain to the original complaint.
Quote
But I really want to see it go to court because crytek hopefully would have found evidence to show the intent is different than what the golden rule might show.
The Golden Rule is immaterial to this case; and that's what I expect the judge's ruling to show. In fact, the MtD hurts CIG more than it helps, because it's just going to give them an idea of how good or bad the case is for them. Which is where settlements come from.
Post by: Wipeout on January 14, 2018, 11:06:36 AM
That's wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.
You DO know what a DLC is, right? I means it is an add-on to a main product.
SQ42 is NOT an add-on as it does NOT require Star Citizen for it to work. It doesn't matter if it is launched from the same launcher like Star Marine, Arena Commander or not. As long as it is stand-alone, and sold separately, it is not DLC.
It is already in court.
The judge can't dismiss any part of the lawsuit. She can only agree to or deny parts of the MtD which pertain to the original complaint.
The Golden Rule is immaterial to this case; and that's what I expect the judge's ruling to show. In fact, the MtD hurts CIG more than it helps, because it's just going to give them an idea of how good or bad the case is for them. Which is where settlements come from.
We will simply have to agree to disagree on this, for me there is to much against crytek at this time, and if Crytek doesn't have proper evidence then I won't be surprised that this case will only be about specific bugsmashers videos and not giving updates to Crytek. After the research I have done, I can't deny what 3 law professionals have stated which gives more credit to the conclusion I came to. That conclusion being CIG did not breach the GLA in the stuff that they responded too, and that the contract and exhibit 2 do support what they did with the package split. You say I am wrong, but honestly what you are saying looks wrong to me based on what the GLA says .
We will have to wait and see . Hopefully Crytek response is going to include evidence to support thier side.
Post by: Backer42 on January 14, 2018, 11:27:02 AM
Post by: Motto on January 14, 2018, 01:48:47 PM
Post by: dsmart on January 14, 2018, 02:08:55 PM
We will simply have to agree to disagree on this, for me there is to much against crytek at this time, and if Crytek doesn't have proper evidence then I won't be surprised that this case will only be about specific bugsmashers videos and not giving updates to Crytek. After the research I have done, I can't deny what 3 law professionals have stated which gives more credit to the conclusion I came to. That conclusion being CIG did not breach the GLA in the stuff that they responded too, and that the contract and exhibit 2 do support what they did with the package split. You say I am wrong, but honestly what you are saying looks wrong to me based on what the GLA says .
We will have to wait and see . Hopefully Crytek response is going to include evidence to support thier side.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Post by: StanTheMan on January 16, 2018, 08:26:26 PM
We will simply have to agree to disagree on this, for me there is to much against crytek at this time, and if Crytek doesn't have proper evidence then I won't be surprised that this case will only be about specific bugsmashers videos and not giving updates to Crytek. After the research I have done, I can't deny what 3 law professionals have stated which gives more credit to the conclusion I came to. That conclusion being CIG did not breach the GLA in the stuff that they responded too, and that the contract and exhibit 2 do support what they did with the package split. You say I am wrong, but honestly what you are saying looks wrong to me based on what the GLA says .
We will have to wait and see . Hopefully Crytek response is going to include evidence to support thier side.
What makes you think that you know better than Skadden ?
Post by: Wipeout on January 16, 2018, 08:55:47 PM
What makes you think that you know better than Skadden ?
What makes you think Skadden is right, an all the other law professionals who spoke out, including council for CIG, are wrong?
You believe Skadden has a perfect record? That they only take cases that are sure winners?
Post by: Kyrt on January 16, 2018, 11:00:17 PM
What makes you think Skadden is right, an all the other law professionals who spoke out, including council for CIG, are wrong?
You believe Skadden has a perfect record? That they only take cases that are sure winners?
Certainly not.
IMO anyway, CIG could very likely win this case depending on how certain aspects of law are interpreted. I don't believe the case will be dismissed, but again, it wouldn't be surprising.
The issue about Skadden is that they are a highly reputable firm with a reputation that allows them to charge $1000 an hour. They aren't likely to willingly do anything to damage that reputation....and frivolously pursuing this case, if it really were the slam dunk CIGs response suggests, would damage it.
Maybe not a lot, but it often doesn't take a lot.
This, in turn, supports the implication that CryTek possess evidence which supports their interpretation of the GLA. The most obvious would be emails.
We must also be mindful that we don't really know for sure what CryTek really want from ths. My own opinion is that they want a simple payout, the code they are owed and their code removed from Star Citizen (ie, their IP protected).
Modest aims...but one could also suggest they are after another end. Perhaps all they want...for whatever reason...is the contract to be terminated. Its easy to see why CIG would not want this...they'd have to delete CryEngine code, and that might be problematic.
Regardless, Skaddens presence is not a guarantee of victory, but it does imply a stronger case on CryTeks part. I do not believe the case will be dismissed, even without a response; I think it strong enough to survive that challenge mostly intact but I think CryTek will need more than what they have shown to demonstrate intent.
In short...CIG are probably guilty, but proving it to the standard required is going to be difficult.
Which is why I am looking forward to their response. It should give us a better idea of the real strength of CryTeks case.
And...who knows? Maybe it will be dismissed.
Post by: dsmart on January 17, 2018, 08:25:10 AM
What makes you think Skadden is right, an all the other law professionals who spoke out, including council for CIG, are wrong?
You believe Skadden has a perfect record? That they only take cases that are sure winners?
I dunno. Maybe because there are good and bad lawyers? And because Skadden, unlike those other guys, have more facts about the case?
Post by: Wipeout on January 17, 2018, 03:28:07 PM
I dunno. Maybe because there are good and bad lawyers? And because Skadden, unlike those other guys, have more facts about the case?
Well if you want to place your bets on Skadden/Crytek maybe having evidence to show the language of the GLA is different than what it would mean in the common usage, then go ahead. I hope you are right and they do, but I have my doubts that they do. I am afraid this is going to be like the Facebook/Bethesda suit where Bethesda/Skadden lost all the major points of the complaint and won the minor complaints, so I can see the same thing happening here where Crytek/Skadden might only win on the parts of not giving updates to Cryek and bugsmashers.
We will see. What I want to happen and what I think will most likely happen are very much polar opposites. lol.
Post by: StanTheMan on January 17, 2018, 05:06:30 PM
Well if you want to place your bets on Skadden/Crytek maybe having evidence to show the language of the GLA is different than what it would mean in the common usage, then go ahead. I hope you are right and they do, but I have my doubts that they do. I am afraid this is going to be like the Facebook/Bethesda suit where Bethesda/Skadden lost all the major points of the complaint and won the minor complaints, so I can see the same thing happening here where Crytek/Skadden might only win on the parts of not giving updates to Cryek and bugsmashers.
We will see. What I want to happen and what I think will most likely happen are very much polar opposites. lol.
Best thing to do as a Lay person is let the experts argue it out and apply some critical thinking.
If someone like Skadden brings a case against you ... probably got grounds....probably going to have to pay up..
Croberts is a scamming incompetent...hes been sued by Costner (who is apparently a decent fella) ...probably been ripping off Crytek..
Post by: dsmart on January 17, 2018, 05:39:39 PM
Well if you want to place your bets on Skadden/Crytek maybe having evidence to show the language of the GLA is different than what it would mean in the common usage, then go ahead. I hope you are right and they do, but I have my doubts that they do.
I can't wait to read their response this Friday. I personally believe it's going to be amazing and completely devastating to CIG.
Quote
I am afraid this is going to be like the Facebook/Bethesda suit where Bethesda/Skadden lost all the major points of the complaint and won the minor complaints, so I can see the same thing happening here where Crytek/Skadden might only win on the parts of not giving updates to Cryek and bugsmashers.
We will see. What I want to happen and what I think will most likely happen are very much polar opposites. lol.
You DO know how silly that sounds, right? Different case, different parties, DIFFERENT EVERYTHING. That's like comparing Apples to Eggs.
Post by: Wipeout on January 17, 2018, 06:54:33 PM
I can't wait to read their response this Friday. I personally believe it's going to be amazing and completely devastating to CIG.
You DO know how silly that sounds, right? Different case, different parties, DIFFERENT EVERYTHING. That's like comparing Apples to Eggs.
I can't wait for the response either, and hope they do have evidence to show stuff means something different than what the common usage is.
The point of the comparison is to show just because Skadden is involved, it doesn't automatically mean everything in a complaint is true and can be proven, it doesn't automatically mean that Skadden is right.
Post by: Bubba on January 17, 2018, 08:58:04 PM
Yes, Skadden does lose cases. The Supreme Court even ruled against them last year.
On a complaint not every cause needs to be equally strong.
But remember something Mr. French said about the initial complaint: it was short, outlining the causes for action without providing all the gory details. His view was that this was a sign they were looking to settle.
Yes, but there's something more going on. Look again at the cig/rsi "business model": currently they're seeking "pledges" for future features so they can develop those they've already "sold." This model needs a public that believes they can deliver. While having a few whales and shills enforce a toxic community that aggressively ridicules the competition (cue the ED hating) may seem to be in the interest of CGI/rsi, it's actually lethal. It means their fans have created a closed social system with a rigid hierarchy, effectively isolating themselves from any potential new members. The only citizens they have active now are those that were active in 2015.
They're dying even while they talk about how great things are.
And here comes Skadden on behalf of CryTek, and they cry "shakedown".
Well, the strength of the case is not just that the contract was broken, but also that, to even discuss it, CGI/rsi will have to admit to their dwindling fanbase that the story they've been telling is not entirely accurate. Even as their thug -driven hype machine tries to spin it, the cognitive dissonance will eat away at their backers.
So this lawsuit in itself has a huge cost to the defendants, one they don't seem to realize as they cheerfully reveal the business details that the plaintiff merely alluded to.
I am looking forward to Skadden's response. Now that CIG/RSI has put into play all these aspects that the initial complaint merely threatened, we can get to the meat.
The game may suck, but the meta is fantastic.
Post by: dsmart on January 18, 2018, 05:33:11 AM
The point of the comparison is to show just because Skadden is involved, it doesn't automatically mean everything in a complaint is true and can be proven, it doesn't automatically mean that Skadden is right.
I get that, because it's obvious. But nobody is saying they are right. We're all giving opinions on our reading of the GLA. What the law determines is right, is what will prevail. And that's where expertise comes in. An experienced and expensive law firm would not take a take unless it had some merit. And of course that sort of experience comes with the expertise to make a determination as to whether or not their reading and understanding of the GLA is correct or not. That's how the law works.
I can't wait to read what those Youtube lawyers have to say in the coming weeks, seeing as they automatically gave CIG a "win" by declaring a whole heap of nonsense. The only way CIG is likely to win, is if the judge dismisses all of the 4 points in MtD. And that's not bloody likely to happen.
Post by: dsmart on January 18, 2018, 05:42:54 AM
Of course, I'm skeptical when Derek in his latest tweetroll unloads a chain of ad homines in place of an argument:
Wait! what? Please show me a SINGLE instance of ad hominem in that Tweet unroll
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/953691070898102272.html
Quote
But remember something Mr. French said about the initial complaint: it was short, outlining the causes for action without providing all the gory details. His view was that this was a sign they were looking to settle.
Yeah, that's rubbish. It's a common strategy to do a barebones filing in order to see how the other side responds. THEN you hit them with the rest of the facts. And that's what I expect to happen in their upcoming (hopefully tomorrow, which is the deadline) filing.
Also, why wouldn't they be looking to settle? The majority of cases never go to trial. So why is that an issue?
Quote
And here comes Skadden on behalf of CryTek, and they cry "shakedown".
That fact that they think a company suing to enforce a contract is a shakedown, just completely shows their bias, and lays waste any argument they could possibly have. Of course it's something they see as an attack on their "dream", so this attitude is to be expected.
Quote
Well, the strength of the case is not just that the contract was broken, but also that, to even discuss it, CGI/rsi will have to admit to their dwindling fanbase that the story they've been telling is not entirely accurate. Even as their thug -driven hype machine tries to spin it, the cognitive dissonance will eat away at their backers. So this lawsuit in itself has a huge cost to the defendants, one they don't seem to realize as they cheerfully reveal the business details that the plaintiff merely alluded to.
This is precisely why the CIG response reads like a PR move to appease the backers, as it had zero defense. Heck, they didn't even bother to address 2 of the 4 issues in the complaint, which guarantees that their MtD would fail.
Quote
I am looking forward to Skadden's response. Now that CIG/RSI has put into play all these aspects that the initial complaint merely threatened, we can get to the meat.
If I'm right and the upcoming response is a nuclear explosion, it pretty means the end of CIG, even before the judge gets around to her Feb 9th ruling on the MtD.
Quote
The game may suck, but the meta is fantastic.
That it is.
Post by: StanTheMan on January 19, 2018, 04:57:14 PM
Code: [Select]
"A fortiori", it's a "Wipeout"
Now where is French ATM ?
Oh here he is
at 13.09...French walks back from his previous position ?
"is the judge really going to dismiss this case on a motion to dismiss ? Probably not "
We are not talking about very good "legal education" here ....are we Frenchie ?
...and the Shitizens are definitely playing "Sideline" Brokeback not "Sideline Quarterback" !
Sell me another JPEG Chris !
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/7d/fb/aa/7dfbaa7d89ba563276f15fb63a4a2527.jpg)
Post by: premiumnugz on January 19, 2018, 05:08:54 PM
(http://static.adweek.com/adweek.com-prod/wp-content/uploads/files/news_article/better-call-saul-tca-hed-2015.png)
:laugh: Saul always reminds me of Ortwin... Maybe when this whole fiasco finally implodes they can hire him to be Saul's on screen wheeler-dealer twin brother.
Post by: Bubba on January 19, 2018, 06:19:11 PM
But it would be better to point to the fact that these YouTube clowns don't see the obvious weaknesses in their arguments, like the difference between a statement in recital and in the body, which we even saw. I mean, Derek, you've made some good arguments, and collectively there's been some good arguments made on this board. There's also been a lot of bad arguments and some specious crap. But a lawyer's job is to assess and employ arguments, not the authority making them. Those YouTube lawyers would do well to read what's being said here, even if they disagree. They wouldn't find the Skadden response so surprising.
That said, I do suspect Derek of having sources close to the litigation. How else would be know that Ortwin in the waiver presented CIG as a third party and did not disclose the public fact that he was a founding member? Assuming, of course, that the waiver says what Skadden claims it does.
Key takeaways: whether CryEngine was removed is a contested point of fact, and that alone should be enough to get to discovery. The response is measured in its tone, but devastating in its depth: that's why they shouldn't have pressed the Ortwin issue, look they admitted to breaking the contract.
Post by: dsmart on January 20, 2018, 06:48:02 AM
Yes, ad homines, like mocking the opposition as non practicing YouTube lawyers.
The term doesn't mean what you think it means. I would suggest that you look it up before using it, let alone accusing someone of it.
Quote
Okay, you might try to counter that the fact they are non practicing and using YouTube to generate revenue is relevant, since they are appealing to their own authority.
No I won't. Because I'm not a moron.
Quote
That said, I do suspect Derek of having sources close to the litigation. How else would be know that Ortwin in the waiver presented CIG as a third party and did not disclose the public fact that he was a founding member? Assuming, of course, that the waiver says what Skadden claims it does.
So you're arguing with yourself now, then?
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&pagenumber=3519&perpage=40#post480416413
"Because I have credible sources, I can safely say that it's as absolutely fucking hilarious as it is disastrous for RSI/CIG. And it's coming tomorrow.
I think backers are going to be walking off cliffs when they read the brutal take down of Ortwin over his conflict of interest. Or how they completely shred CIG for their attempt at re-defining the intent of the word "exclusive" as used in 2.1.2. They called it "absurd", and I hear that at least one sentence had the word "nonsense" (a Derek Smart trademark) in it.
Tomorrow can't come soon enough, and I have Pacer in an auto-refresh tab already."
Quote
Key takeaways: whether CryEngine was removed is a contested point of fact,
It's not. CIG already said that they switched. The issue is that they claim the GLA allows them to do so, while Crytek says that it doesn't.
Post by: Bubba on January 20, 2018, 09:44:51 AM
It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?
And, yeah, I am arguing with myself. Beneath all the bluster and insults, there's some very solid intelligence coming out here. Compare that to the SC media engine, where whiny boys fall over each other to invent a narrative on what's actually happening. My point was that the reason the CryTek response wasn't surprising was because, following the discussion here, we already knew what it would look like.
Post by: Kyrt on January 20, 2018, 10:02:35 AM
It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?
I would personally question CIGs assertions that it took a couple of engineers two days to perform the switch.
Testing of the assets, modules, code, etc to ensure that everything still worked, modifying those that didn't and recreating those that needed to be recreated for the new engine would take longer. While both engines have a similar ancestor, both Amazon and CIG were up front that both engines had received major changes.
Maybe they are right, maybe their info is accurate....but I wouldn't bet on it. And from what others have said, what CIG actually did ion those two days was integrate some AWS modules form LY and switch the splash screens. That strikes me as being more suited to 2 or 3 days work.
Post by: StanTheMan on January 20, 2018, 10:30:29 AM
page 8: "In any event, Defendants' bare assertion that they "are not using any copyrighted work belonging to Crytek" ... presents a disputed factual question that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss."
It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?
And, yeah, I am arguing with myself. Beneath all the bluster and insults, there's some very solid intelligence coming out here. Compare that to the SC media engine, where whiny boys fall over each other to invent a narrative on what's actually happening. My point was that the reason the CryTek response wasn't surprising was because, following the discussion here, we already knew what it would look like.
I am not sure how much you are saying is getting lost in translation here on this forum and how much your intentions are understood...but.
It is not remotely credible that CIG got the CryEngine out of SC, not then, not now, not ever - unless they delete it and start again. Lumberyard or no Lumberyard.
On the other matter, there is bluster and there is informed opinion.
It isnt always easy to determine who has credibility on a subject and who is essentially just expressing an opinion based on limited expertise.
Derek has plenty of expertise and thats derived from years of practical experience, the brainpower to understand the subject matter and wisdom that comes with age.
The rest of us by and large hint at our credentials in our various posts and would probably be willing to go into more detail if asked about our expertise on various subjects and how long or short we are in the tooth.
Post by: Bubba on January 20, 2018, 03:12:04 PM
But if I want to talk about the SC train wreck, this is the place to do it, for the reasons that have been outlined, for the most part.
I mean, I don't think Dr. Smart is excessively intelligent or wise, but he has three endearing qualities:
A. He's got the internet gift of ubiquity. If you mention his name in a public forum, he will reply. Maybe he can't keep up with the sheer volume of Shitizen hatred, but I doubt it.
B. He's stubborn and will defend causes decades after they're lost.
C. He's not stupid.
Chris Roberts, Ortwin and company could have avoided all this if they just acted like everyone else and ignored Dr. Smart's ranting. But they didn't. They took the bait then, just as they took the bait in the complaint, replying to what they had better left ignored. They handed Dr. Smart this role.
Like many folks here, I've been around a while, and when I saw these amazing ads for ships, I smelled something fishy: you can't just announce a smuggler ship in an adversarial MMO environment; that takes prototyping, playtesting, and tweaking. Then, when they actually went after Derek, well, that got my attention. The rest is a story of, at best, spectacularly bad management.
About my argument with myself:
Quote
"So it's irrelevant to me how people view sourced material. Believe what you want, I don't care. And nobody cares what YOU think."
I wouldn't ask Dr. Smart to give up his sourced material. But I would observe that his sources have until now accurately predicted CryTek's moves. He's now claiming that the worst (for CIG and companies) is yet to come. I'm also sure that CryTek would be very happy to settle, and having a third party make such claims would be very much in their interest in applying pressure.
So, are they gonna call the bluff or fold here? 'cos my gut tells me it's not a bluff.
Post by: FredBloggs on January 20, 2018, 06:33:02 PM
Post by: dsmart on January 21, 2018, 06:01:39 AM
It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?
Clearly you haven't been paying attention, have you?
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/954724633344913408.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948952076004089857.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948544238790299648.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942753856332685312.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942373527893798912.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/940947796794003457.html
http://www.dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/
Post by: dsmart on January 21, 2018, 06:04:23 AM
About my argument with myself:
I wouldn't ask Dr. Smart to give up his sourced material. But I would observe that his sources have until now accurately predicted CryTek's moves. He's now claiming that the worst (for CIG and companies) is yet to come. I'm also sure that CryTek would be very happy to settle, and having a third party make such claims would be very much in their interest in applying pressure.
So, are they gonna call the bluff or fold here? 'cos my gut tells me it's not a bluff.
The worst that's coming, has nothing to do with the Crytek lawsuit.
FYI, those here who are in my private Discord channel, know that I've been talking about this particular Crytek lawsuit for almost a year now. But of course I couldn't say anything. Once I got the all clear that it was filed and I could make it public, that's when I did (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/940947796794003457.html). And that's when the world first knew about it.
Post by: Bubba on January 21, 2018, 06:45:24 AM
Quote
Clearly you haven't been paying attention, have you?
Now you're arguing with yourself.
I stated:
Quote
Key takeaways: whether CryEngine was removed is a contested point of fact,
You replied:
Quote
It's not. CIG already said that they switched. The issue is that they claim the GLA allows them to do so, while Crytek says that it doesn't.
As a matter of fact, we CIG claims that they switched and removed CryEngine. In this reply, CryTek is claiming that this fact needs to be determined. That makes it a contested point of fact for the case.
It also matches a point that you've been making all along.
---
Worse? Criminal charges filed? Coutts loan called in, triggered by some sort safety clause? Sudden bankruptcy? There's many ways this can get worse.
Post by: dsmart on January 21, 2018, 06:49:42 AM
Now you're arguing with yourself.
You're going around in circles. I specifically quoted what I was responding to. Which was this:
"It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?"
You are asking me a question for which my stance has been solid since I first wrote a blog about it in Dec 2016 when they claimed to have switched. That opinion has been echoed in ALL the links I provided in my response above.
Post by: StanTheMan on January 21, 2018, 08:00:09 AM
If one recalls CRoberts said it had taken them a couple of days IIRC to switch from Cryengine to Lumberyard when the Lumberyard logo appeared in SC and people noticed it.
You don't have to be a software developer to know that is bullshit.
We are talking about a piece of software that forms the framework and toolkit that SC is built around and at that point had supposedly been in development for over 4 years with a multitude of people working on it. people that included inexperienced interns, contractors and experienced developers including previous Crytek employees. All led by a dictatorial Programme Manager and his attention seeking inexperienced in business wife.
It isn't remotely plausible given the trouble we all have changing ANYTHING that complicated systems, processes or engineering are built upon.
It would have taken longer to change the carpet in their various offices !
And that's before we consider it was all done over Christmas ...
Now they have had plenty of time since then but that's another matter when expertise in this type of software is required and has been provided by Derek, backed up by many others.
Post by: Bubba on January 21, 2018, 08:23:46 AM
Post by: jwh1701 on January 21, 2018, 08:37:40 AM
We switched our server nos install program from a windows base to linux and it took us 1 1/2 months including creating about 1200 test scripts at IBM. I would have to think that the SC coding in greatly more complex than install nos to servers. Looking over the claims made I just cannot understand how they did it in two days.
Since I'm unfamiliar with game development is it possible that the modules all ride on top of the base with out touching core architecture? Similar to how you can expand program functionality like plugins? That is the only way I could understand the two day change over. But I would suspect it hinder performance by doing so instead of having the functionality built into crytek engine.
Post by: dsmart on January 21, 2018, 08:54:12 AM
Indeed. And this is why it is so important to emphasize that whether CIG/RSI removed CryEngine is, for the lawsuit, a disputed point of fact. CryTek did not say, "yes, we grant that CryEngine was removed with the switch to LY," but rather left room for some fun in discovery. CIG says they removed all coprighted material, CryTek disputes this. This wrinkle is first made explicit in their reply to the MtD. Yes, it's what Derek has been saying all along.
(https://i.imgur.com/dgepQ40.png)
Above is what Ben Parry claims happened (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5/page2058), as I wrote in this Dec 27, 2016 blog (http://www.dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/). And my guess is that coming from a company engineer, it's going to come back to haunt them.
It doesn't matter that LY contains CE 3.8. What matters is that the Crytek and Amazon licenses are DIFFERENT in the eyes of the law. It's like you buying a White box item, vs a retail item. They are the same items, but the latter probably comes with longer warranty, nice box, manuals etc. Also the same as getting a warranty replacement (e.g. from Apple) which isn't the same as the original.
That Amazon built Lumberyard from CryEngine doesn't mean that anyone using LY automatically gets a license to use CryEngine, which is actually being sold separately. That would be like claiming that buying the White box item entitles you to 12 month warranty from the manufacturer, though the White box seller only gave you 90 days.
Besides, they're not even claiming that they didn't switch. They're claiming that they DID switch even though the dispute is that the GLA does not permit them to do so.
And the reason that I say they didn't switch, but are pretending that they did, is because they know that the underlying CryEngine code they built Star Engine with, is similar to what LY is built on. Unfortunately for them, anyone looking at the LY changelog can see that they have deviated so far from CE3.8, that it is inconceivable that CIG were able to switch at all, let alone in under two days. And even if CIG were still on that porting effort since Dec 2016, and more so now with this lawsuit, they can't forge code version control logs, nor the files.
So even if they managed to mask it in such a way that they tracked all the files from the stock CE version, matched them to the LY version and copied over, they would still be busted via their own version control, as well as the fact that LY has changed a LOT of the stock CE files. I know this because I have both stock CE and LY.
Heck, I was able to disassemble their own exe back when I was posting about CE spin locks (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/938196023767453697).
If you are using files from stock CE, you are on the Crytek license.
If you are using files from LY (derivative CE), you are on the Amazon license.
Look at it this way. Several car manufacturers use the same air bags. You can literally take one airbag from the same manufacturer, and put it in another vehicle that uses the same airbag make and model. However, because different vendors have their own serial and part numbers, which vary from the manufacturer's own original ones, you can easily trace that an airbag from vendor B that you put in your vehicle, does not match the original that came from vendor A. That's how we get into things like generic auto parts, video cards, medicine etc.
Here are excerpts from my thread yesterday.
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/954761797134880769
Quote
As a dev, I still maintain that CIG have NOT switched to LY, that they are STILL using their custom CE3, while using LY parts (e.g. AWS SDK) which are required by Amazon in order to use their engine.
I remain 100% confident that I am RIGHT, and that they're going to be exposed.
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/954762159891902465
Quote
The argument that because LY uses CE3 and so the switch was OK, falls flat when you consider that a license to CE3 is NOT a license to LY.
And this is why we have version control repo logs.
Goddamn! I want to be on that discovery forensics team.
Why did this switch, or lied that they switched?
My theory is that they KNEW the GLA only permitted them ONE game. By switching to LY, they avoid that breach. Except they didn't actually do it.
Also they no longer had to pay Crytek 100K Euros a year for support contract.
UPDATE:
Someone on my Discord just pointed that in this Jan 4th, 2017 video @ 2:25, you can see core CryEngine code (GetFlashPlayer) that's not in Lumberyard.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15666-Bugsmashers
Quote
At 2:25 there's some code on screen, which looks very much like CryEngine code and not Lumberyard. CE uses scaleform UI, which is basically flash. LY does not have this, does not come with a scaleform license, and uses a different UI system. So 2.6 was CryEngine, and not Lumberyard. The switch never happened. Called it. They just cherrypicked network stuff from LY onto their codebase, keeping CE specific stuff, essentially still being CryEngine.
Quote
And yeah, if you go as far as 3:26 then it appears that he's editing a customised version of the file CRYENGINE\Code\CryEngine\CryAction\FlashUI\FlashUIElement.cpp
As PederP says, this was part of CryEngine and Lumberyard doesn't have any FlashUI code in it because it uses a different UI. (see repo here for what survives from CE)
And although they've only published a couple of lines for the public to see, the greater point is that it does seem that they're not meant to be using that file any more, if they have switched over to Lumberyard. No doubt that this is why CT are claiming that the infringement might be ongoing.
And if they are still using CE's FlashUI... does that also mean that they must still be using Scaleform? Because that was the subject of the Exhibit 4 document (the one with CR's sig on it) and it's a sub-license to allow CIG to use Autodesk's Scaleform within CE - middleware software that Amazon have dropped - and the license to use was only valid under the terms of the GLA.
So if they're saying they're not under the CE GLA, and if they are still using CE FlashUI with 3rd party Scaleform to display HUD's and Mobiglass (or even just for 2.6.0.0 seen in the video) well this could get even messier yet.
They claim to have switched December 2016, the video was recorded (according to the desktop clock) and published early January 2017.
I hope there's a legit reason for this, but I can't see how this is not as bad as it looks.
UPDATE! UPDATE! UPDATE!
More Ben Parry comments regarding The Big Switch
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/362664170254106624/404782033936580608/unknown.png)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4943747&viewfull=1#post4943747
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/362664170254106624/404782243530276865/unknown.png)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4943734&viewfull=1#post4943734
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/362664170254106624/404782689191723010/unknown.png)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4943682&viewfull=1#post4943682
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/362664170254106624/404783028380893197/unknown.png)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4943353&viewfull=1#post4943353
Post by: dsmart on February 26, 2018, 02:45:24 PM
No word yet why he changed his name to Dan Adams though.
Also, he's using UE5 :)
https://www.dsogaming.com/news/former-lead-technical-designer-on-star-citizen-reveals-new-six-degrees-of-freedom-space-combat-game/
No idea yet why he changed his name though.
I also just found out that the NDA he sends out for the game, uses Dan Adams.
And his name in the credits for Mechwarrior Living Legends was also changed.
Time to go sleuth this.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dantr/
UPDATE(1): A Goon says he took his wife's last name
UPDATE(2) He responded https://twitter.com/KazeOfKami/status/968273115544395776
"@dsmart Well, would you want to be associated with Sean Tracy? Yeah neither do I. ;)"
Post by: David-2 on February 26, 2018, 05:06:46 PM
Post by: dsmart on February 27, 2018, 07:50:24 AM
It's advantageous to have a name closer to the top of an alphabetical sort.
LOL!! Well, he responded https://twitter.com/KazeOfKami/status/968273115544395776
Quote
@dsmart Well, would you want to be associated with Sean Tracy? Yeah neither do I. ;)
Post by: jwh1701 on February 27, 2018, 08:27:38 AM
LOL!! Well, he responded https://twitter.com/KazeOfKami/status/968273115544395776
Amazing they were aware of you post so quickly, went to the kick starter page for the game.
Not sure what to make of it, based on what was shown. Hopefully they loose the 3rd person
view, footage showed mission that required asteroids to be destroyed, then I guess alien
orbs were hiding in them an attacked.
From twitter: Calling all Wardens!
Sounds somewhat familiar.
Update: Watched all the youtube vids: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0r3SPSiwoQMIqjYaKomswA
Seamless Transitions from Station to Space
Manage Earths Orbital Defenses
Manage Orbital Fleets
Honestly what is shown is not to exciting for me, nostalgia from playing asteroids maybe a little.
They will need to add an extraordinary amount of gameplay than what is shown to garner my interest.
Post by: dsmart on February 27, 2018, 12:48:06 PM
Post by: Stilo on February 28, 2018, 01:52:30 AM
Post by: dsmart on March 01, 2018, 10:50:17 AM
Well, they have to complete the game, SQ42, within 3yrs of that grant. Which means 2018-2019. Or else.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/downloads/bfi-british-film-certification-cultural-test-for-video-games-guidance-notes-2016-03.pdf
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXOIPp7XcAcVTMR.jpg:large)
Post by: StanTheMan on March 01, 2018, 12:01:34 PM
Post by: dsmart on March 05, 2018, 09:45:24 AM
Several at F42-UK (Star Citizen) left|on way out. Studios (e.g. Everywhere Games who use Lumberyard) aggressively recruiting - and have several agencies helping them staff 100+ positions.
CIG/RSI freaking out and offering a lot of incentives for people to stay.
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/970698828641861632
Post by: jwh1701 on March 05, 2018, 12:35:32 PM
*BREAKING*
Several at F42-UK (Star Citizen) left|on way out. Studios (e.g. Everywhere Games who use Lumberyard) aggressively recruiting - and have several agencies helping them staff 100+ positions.
CIG/RSI freaking out and offering a lot of incentives for people to stay.
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/970698828641861632
Seen plenty of talk that they are paying very low wages and in addition to the frustration I would feel with CR's management style. Few times at IBM and other companies although not often but they would change the scope of the project and to be setback can be frustrating. Who wants to sit around and refactor and polish over and over, maybe pee wee herman might a good choice for the polishing team at cig if the spot is open.
My first meme for SC as I get tired of here about polishing:
(https://s26.postimg.org/e026895nd/pee_wee.jpg)
Post by: dsmart on June 25, 2018, 11:15:14 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/8qj6hn/start_your_morning_right/
Case # 18SMSC01860
https://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/
Post by: N0mad on June 25, 2018, 11:24:02 AM
Post by: dsmart on June 25, 2018, 02:16:59 PM
The guy seems pretty well prepared. How much of a headache is this going to be for CIG if the court rules against them?
While I have no confidence that he will prevail, if CIG doesn't defend (they will) this, and they lose by default, it will cause them serious problems down the road because it will just set a precedent and open the flood gates for similar action.
My guess is that they are going to answer, then file a motion to dismiss due to the arbitration clause in the TOS. If that happens, then he will have to re-file an arbitration case where they are likely to win since it tends to favor corporations. If he goes that far, it will be very interesting to see their arguments. They're going to have to convince the arbitrator that they have somehow satisfied their obligations to him, and delivered a product. Aside from them having to make that whole "it's crowd-funding" argument. It's going to be several shades of hilarious - and I can't wait.
Since 2015 as I was tracking their various TOS changes (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-tos/), I had said that they were doing it in order to rip backers off by walking back various promises (refunds, financial accountability etc).
Here we are.
Streetroller, the guy was the subject of my refund debacle blog (http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/07/star-citizen-the-refund-debacle/) from 2016, also had filed a defective lawsuit in NJ earlier this year. That one was so defective, it didn't survive (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=15.msg8345#msg8345) a motion to dismiss this past April.
UPDATE: Looks like this morning OSC had a similar post (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/8t5l4p/refund_lawsuit/e19fqj6/) about another lawsuit threat
Post by: dsmart on June 29, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
Yup. I called that one (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6129/) back in Dec 2017.
Post by: dsmart on June 29, 2018, 05:35:50 PM
Whelp! Chris is currently live on Twitch (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/279019448) and just confirmed (@ 01:01:23) that Squadron 42 is NOT coming in 2018.
Yup. I called that one (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6129/) back in Dec 2017.
UPDATE: YT link @ 1:13:35
Post by: N0mad on June 30, 2018, 02:12:34 AM
- Production, at the moment, doesn't feel comfortable sharing what we have
- We've got to figure out some way not to give things away
- If we had a roadmap we've got to release it at the end
- Not everything is buttoned down
- Production is very reluctant to release something which may change
- We've also had to adapt to the new Agile process
- It's insanely big and ambitious, and probably shouldn't have been done
- From a confidence standpoint, nobody wants to put something out there which will change again and get criticised
- The Production team are very sensitive to criticism
- That's just how game development works - other games have taken just as long
- We need better long term planning, it's very difficult
- Erin needs to feel comfortable with it
- I don't lie, I'm an optimist by nature because I'm a creative type
Post by: helimoth on June 30, 2018, 04:12:15 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/LNORyZL.jpg)
Updated with time stamp
just needs the man in the image to be shopped to have his fingers crossed behind his back :emot-laugh:
Post by: dsmart on June 30, 2018, 04:38:51 AM
Ah yes the SQ42 Roadmap [st]lies[/st] excuses:
- Production, at the moment, doesn't feel comfortable sharing what we have
- We've got to figure out some way not to give things away
- If we had a roadmap we've got to release it at the end
- Not everything is buttoned down
- Production is very reluctant to release something which may change
- We've also had to adapt to the new Agile process
- It's insanely big and ambitious, and probably shouldn't have been done
- From a confidence standpoint, nobody wants to put something out there which will change again and get criticised
- The Production team are very sensitive to criticism
- That's just how game development works - other games have taken just as long
- We need better long term planning, it's very difficult
- Erin needs to feel comfortable with it
- I don't lie, I'm an optimist by nature because I'm a creative type
YT link @ 49:30
In that same broadcast, there were so many revelations - mostly of defeat and that I was right about the project - that you have to watch the whole thing to fully grasp the gravity of it all. He also basically said that the project, 6 years and $190M later, is "a bit of a mess".
Post by: dsmart on June 30, 2018, 05:05:36 AM
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/ifcs-q-a/1286733
He has a doctorate btw, and is one of the best devs they have. He has been replaced by a jnr dev, Dave Colson (https://twitter.com/dave_colson/status/893240658487631872), who's only worked on basic FPS games.
Post by: dsmart on June 30, 2018, 07:20:55 AM
Star Citizen: Around the Verse
Nov 16, 2017
Todd Papy Game Design
"...and making sure that we can refine that to as small of a list and as concise of a list as what we would consider a MINIMUM VIABLE PRODUCT, to put that out to PTU and to live"
Jake Ross Producer, Texas, since 2014
"...we're gonna review that process, hopefully get a minimal amount of feedback so we can get super close to calling this thing FEATURE COMPLETE"
Robert Gaither ex QA 1 year, Associate Tech Designer 1 year, Texas
"...also we've got all sorts of art that had rotations all over the place, we had to go back and make sure that everything was placed properly on the shelves and that we're having all the FINAL STUFF in the game, all the FINAL ASSETS in the build"
Robert Reininger Senior Tech Designer, 1y 4mo, Texas
"...definitely been challenges going through this, SHOPKEEPERS has been... you know... that's generally our first usage of the SUBSUMPTION engine in general, so getting to know that has been a challenge, the shopkeepers... although... what you're going to see is fairly simple compared to the overall AI you're gonna see, ah... in the LONG RUN is... still just a good learning experience just for us... ahm... getting... getting... some of the other bugs worked out of the system, you know, INTERACTIONS with objects, getting the camera to sit right on the thing you're trying to focus on and trying on... things like that, it's kinda dialing in the knobs so to speak... it's taken its toll and taken its time"
Ashram Kain Technologist, Producer, 1y 4mo, LA
"Interestingly this week we've had to deal with a number of bugs related to how we do occlusion in the cargo grids, for instance if you were to store a ship in your cargo bay, how do we fill up boxes around that ship so we don't block you so you can't keep the ship there BUT still give you the option of storing cargo inside your ship? It's been very interesting stuff"
Janine Irmler Production assistant, Frankfurt 1y 7mo (previously HR for various companies)
"So what has happened recently is that we transitioned from doing SPRINTS to doing WEEKLY REVIEWS to close out the work for missions for 3.0. We already have a lot of missions available in Evocati (note- there are only 5 missions in Evocati right now) but there are a few still missing so what we are doing is, um... wrapping up the outstanding missions and tasks... which we take through JIRA. So the team is working through the outstanding JIRA lists and to keep it organised we define the FOCUS at the beginning of each week as well as which missions we want to review and we are doing the review at the end of each week. This means that we are also doing daily THINGS to ensure we stay on top of BLOCKERS and any issues that could arise, and also to track progress.
Additionally to the reviews we are also doing PLAYTHROUGHS where... DIRECTORS or LEADS for example can experience the missions themselves, they can play them for themselves and provide additional feedback to the team as well on top of the reviews we have... so... this feedback... we get ALL THE FEEDBACK and it really helps the team to improve and balance the missions further.
This is where we are, we have made lots of progress doing all these REVIEWS and PLAYTHROUGHS and now we're just closing out the LAST BITS so we anticipate to be FEATURE COMPLETE in the very near future"
Luke Pressley ex Crytek, Lead Live Design 3y 10mo, UK
"This week we've been focussing on taking the rest of our missions to FINAL, we've got 7 more taken to FEATURE COMPLETE and I think that leaves us with only 4 more to take there, and we're close."
Matthew Lightfoot ex DayZ/Arma, Associate Producer 2y, UK
"Some of the focuses of the IFCS team was supporting the AI team with bugfixing and spline following, so we've managed to close out quite a few bugs now, we've got one left, which is going to extend to next week and before John can start on the spline following tasks"
John Pritchett Senior Physics Programmer, LA, since 2013
"I'm out here at Foundry 42 so that I can work with Andrew Nicholson (Tech Designer, UK, 1y-ish) and David Colson (junior gameplay programmer, 5mo, UK) on FLIGHT MODEL, so helping out with the TUNING and helping David work on... he's.... he's... been working WITH me recently so he's working on the GRAV-LEV SYSTEM and optimising IFCS and things like that"
Andrew Nicholson Tech Designer, 1y-ish, UK
So last week we managed to complete... I managed to complete a complete pass on the ship tunings for the FCM, velocities, to make things a little faster, it took a LONG time to get through all those ships but I'm really pleased with how that's worked out. This week the focus is the GRAV-LEV simulation for the HOVERBIKES and ATMOSPHERIC TUNINGS and the drag simulation in atmospheric flight.
David Colson Junior Gameplay Programmer, 5mo, UK
We've discovered a little bit before we went to Evocati last week, we found that every so often the ships would just loose control, you would roll and yaw to one side and the PLANE would just start spinning and you weren't able to recover very easily. And we quickly discovered that some PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS that were added a few days earlier CAUSED this issue, we weren't exactly sure why but we needed to release to Evocati so we REMOVED the performance improvements which fixed the ships loosing control but, you know, we still wanted these performance improvements so I went back a couple of days later and took a deeper look at these performance improvements and discovered that, you know, I'd made a mistake and there was some... um... FORCE COUPLES in the way the ship rotates that weren't balanced very well as a result of the performance improvements and it meant that the ship tried to make some manoevures it wasn't balanced and it would just uncontrollably SPIN and not be able to get out."
Leo Vansteenkiste ex-Junior Gameplay Programmer 1y, Gameplay Programmer 1y, UK
"Last week on the (Mobiglass) starmap was quite alright, there are still a few issue where we lost the input and we had a few crashes, those have been fixed. The crashes were kind of hard to fix because they are kind of random"
Mark White Production Assistant 2y, UK
"On the starmap we've been doing the last few bugfixes, on Thursday or Friday last week we got it to a point where we're now happy with it on the UI side so that's now this morning gone over to Todd, Todd's viewed it this morning, he's just sent over a list of 5 or 6 bugs. So now we're going to estimate those, get them into the schedule. Once those bugs are done again we'll go back to Todd and hopefully that'll be it and it'll be completely signed off for 3.0 live"
Chad McKinney ex-Software Engineer 1y 6mo, Lead Gameplay Engineer 4mo, LA
So right now there's kind of two things I'm working on right now with PERSISTENCE. One is just general bug fixing, we've done a lot of work to get persistent behaviour into the game, persisting LOCATIONS, persistent INVENTORY, persisting items and port attachment and so on... Now that we're getting these FEATURES into the hands of the BACKERS and the EVOCATI we're starting to see some very RARE and HARD TO CATCH BUGS come in and so spending time tracking those things down, very rare..."
Post by: jwh1701 on June 30, 2018, 10:02:11 AM
Well, John Pritchett (IFCS, physics etc) has made it public that he's left the building! This is HUGE!
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/ifcs-q-a/1286733
He has a doctorate btw, and is one of the best devs they have. He has been replaced by a jnr dev, Dave Colson (https://twitter.com/dave_colson/status/893240658487631872), who's only worked on basic FPS games.
I though it was odd they way the flight model information was released and still surprised Chris let him publish it. Just another strange turn of events, I find it hard to believe that his work is close to finished. I have to believe they could break his work considering how much left for them to try and cobble together.
Post by: David-2 on June 30, 2018, 11:17:21 AM
I though it was odd they way the flight model information was released and still surprised Chris let it him publish it. Just another strange turn of events, I find it hard to believe that his work is close to finished. I have to believe they could break his work considering how much left for them to try and cobble together.
It's actually pretty clever - for him. A programmer can't take IP with him to show another company at an interview and that includes design documentation that he's written. So if you want to show a prospective employer something significant you've done at another company then you show him shipping product - which is obviously impossible in this case 'cause you want to show something that works, or ... you do what he did!
(He'll still have to answer questions about why, exactly, all that cool stuff isn't actually in the product right now, and that'll necessarily conflict with the usual rule that you don't badmouth former employers in an interview, but he's ok there too: Aas long as he stays in the gaming segment of the industry everyone will know what's going on with Roberts Space Industries.)
Post by: dsmart on June 30, 2018, 02:03:25 PM
Post by: jwh1701 on June 30, 2018, 02:24:10 PM
It's actually pretty clever - for him. A programmer can't take IP with him to show another company at an interview and that includes design documentation that he's written. So if you want to show a prospective employer something significant you've done at another company then you show him shipping product - which is obviously impossible in this case 'cause you want to show something that works, or ... you do what he did!
(He'll still have to answer questions about why, exactly, all that cool stuff isn't actually in the product right now, and that'll necessarily conflict with the usual rule that you don't badmouth former employers in an interview, but he's ok there too: Aas long as he stays in the gaming segment of the industry everyone will know what's going on with Roberts Space Industries.)
I agree if I was in the position I would have done the same to get recognition but its hard for me to believe that Chris allowed it. Considering they try and repackage gaming techno jargon to inflate jpg sales this would I though be a another one. Chris could have repackaged this and used this to say look at what we are doing better than anyone else on youtube.
Post by: jwh1701 on June 30, 2018, 02:27:01 PM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1013040712429002752
That's chopped full of future big revelations, feds is really a big one.
Post by: StanTheMan on June 30, 2018, 06:23:10 PM
just needs the man in the image to be shopped to have his fingers crossed behind his back :emot-laugh:
He is already doing a wanker hand signal.
Post by: dsmart on July 01, 2018, 02:15:15 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhDIh1TW0AE6DoW.jpg)
Post by: jwh1701 on July 04, 2018, 02:19:41 PM
filled with lots of lols
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
1 hour ago
I said it over on Bored's channel and I'll copy paste here. Because, you know, you are our dear leader and I want a promotion in the Org. :P Love you Montoya!
To all those saying they don't understand the hate or why someone would go to these lengths, we need only to view the life of DS and his not so Smart assault on CIG and Star Citizen. It's purely out of jealousy. Jealous that CIG has been able to succeed in financing their game where he failed. Succeed in creating a product that not only surpasses his but glasses it over with a high yield nuclear warhead. Succeed in creating a buzz, hype, and overall good attitude about Star Citizen. Succeed in creating a thriving company where people actually want to work there. While he's managed to ban everyone who's ever been critical of his "games" off Steam. The whole 2 people who played and they were his most loyal fans. He's managed to be proven wrong so many times when it comes to CIG shutting down because they've ran out of money. And best of all, he's jealous of Chris on a personal level. One because Chris was able to come back to a fan base who waited for him eagerly while DS's return was met with a thud of a turd coming out of a dogs ass. And two, most likely the best of all he's jealous of Chris having a lovely wife, Sandy. He wants to be Chris, he wants the money, he wants the fans, and he wants desperately to have praise showered down on him.
This is why, this is why there are haters out there. People like DS who can't get over the fact that this game will succeed where their's failed. And after long enough, even the most idiotic person will gain a following of people who are willing to cling to their words like truth. They will follow him because to them, there's no way this awesome game will succeed and thus the opposition must be true and while there are those out there who don't follow the game or are ignorant of it, he's the only one who actively tries every day of his life to bring it down. And sure, there will be trolls like Goons who want to lead him on but in the end it's funny to them because they are trolls. To his followers he speaks the truth and they need to put and end to SC and CIG. To him, he's an over the hill failed developer who's not being given a second chance because he's that bad. All while his peer has been given a second chance and seized it, to go on to join the successful developers out there.
Jealousy, simple.
lol to believe anyone outside can make it fail
Olsen
Olsen
26 minutes ago
I think it is a psychology thing. These kinds of people are attracted to stuff that is out of the ordinary. They probably get some kind of enjoyment or justification out of trying to make it fail. The more something is loved by fans, the jucier the target is for them. Even if Star Citizen fails, they would instantly go to the next thing they could actively work against. Sounds crazy, because it is.
Post by: dsmart on July 04, 2018, 03:06:17 PM
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/362664170254106624/464187947529535498/screenshot-www.youtube.com-2018-07-04-17-56-39.jpg)
Post by: jwh1701 on July 04, 2018, 03:14:13 PM
He has me on auto-mod on his channel where I posted this.
lol smart response as using alt's would severely impact and diminish the anger and frustration every time you made a post.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on July 04, 2018, 07:31:09 PM
It's probably about time that we all get some sort of Guy Faulkes mask emojis to leave wherever we post as an inside joke, Like the movie V.
Post by: dsmart on July 05, 2018, 04:18:57 AM
Fear not Derek does not need any alts because I am often told that I am DS as an alt. This simply reinforces Dereks statement that these loons see DS lurking behind every anti SC or Croberts posting. They simply cannot imagine anyone finding fault with the plans of fearless leader Croberts. Losers.
It's amazing. And they've been doing that for YEARS.
Post by: helimoth on July 05, 2018, 04:44:14 AM
Post by: Motto on July 05, 2018, 04:52:58 AM
Post by: N0mad on July 05, 2018, 05:20:20 AM
Post by: Motto on July 05, 2018, 06:48:28 AM
Post by: dsmart on July 05, 2018, 07:52:15 AM
@ 37:10
Store Citizer: Around the loving Verse
The Physics of Atmospheric Flight
with
David Colson
David Colson:
Ehm, we've had ISSUES as well, particularly where... say QA or EVOCATI are testing the game, and they have some FEEDBACK that isn't really SPECIFIC, like they'll just say, 'Oh!', say GRAVLEV BIKES for example, 'they don't HANDLE WELL', and like, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
Like what eh... why... why?
Can you... can you not TURN quick enough? Are they loosing CONTROL too much? Like there's so many things that could potentially contribute to 'it doesn't feel good', in the case of GRAVLEV it's usually LOTS OF THINGS.
So we have to try and sort of... FIGURE OUT... what in this system could actually be giving you the behaviour that you have, and how can we fix that... um... that doesn't sound like too much of a technical issue but from a design side it's really really hard to do... that... uhm... and it's a THING that we're constantly sort of learning about as people play the game and test it... uh... we're FIGURING OUT you know... THIS isn't working or... this isn't really FUN we need to try and RECONSIDER this.
Uhm.
And then we have to again... convert this like, vague, 'IT'S NOT FUN' feedback into actual like HARD TECHNICAL FEEDBACK where THIS little force is being applied too much, or, you know... we're rotating the ship a fraction too much here, whatever it is, ehm... and that... TRANSITION is... HARD... it's REALLY HARD
Post by: jwh1701 on July 05, 2018, 08:56:54 AM
Meet the guy (https://www.linkedin.com/in/colsondavid/) who is now in charge of IFCS
Super fast transcribe with errors
and try and you know adjust the system to be more fun and to consider how we can accommodate the players you know needs and wants out of the system we've had issues as well particularly where say QA or ever caught you're testing the game and they have some feedback that isn't really specific like they'll just say oh say gravity bikes for example they don't handle well and like what does that mean like what it why can you can you not turn quick enough are they losing control too much like there's so many things that could potentially contribute to it doesn't feel good and in the case of gravity bike you know it's it's usually lots of things so we have to sort of try and figure out what in this system could actually be giving you the behavior that you have and how can we fix that and that doesn't sound like too much of a technical issue but from a design side it's really really hard to do that and it's a thing that we're constantly sort of learning about as people play the game and test it we're figuring out you know this isn't working or this isn't really fun we need to try and reconsider this and then we have to again convert this like fake it's not fun feedback into actual like hard technical feedback of oh this bit of force is being applied too much or where you know we're rotating the ship the fraction too much here or whatever it is and that transition is hard it's really hard
Post by: dsmart on July 05, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
Post by: jwh1701 on July 05, 2018, 06:32:20 PM
Yeah, he's totally going to be taking over what JP originally designed and maintained for five years (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/ifcs-q-a/1273761).
I'm firing my transcriber yours is much more accurate, do you think that taking 5 years on that doc is appropriate time? Or possibly the time was due to the complexity in modding cryengine and Chris's complete inability to manage plus switching engines?
Post by: dsmart on July 06, 2018, 04:48:50 AM
From his resume, he has never written a flight model before. Just because you have an architectural degree, doesn't mean you can build a house. Sure you can design one.
All of us who have written flight models, had to start somewhere. My first experience was with books by Lee Adams. I just took it from there over the years until I got good at it.
The funny thing is that all the inputs he has in his design, are unnecessary, and needlessly complex. Which is probably what Chris was asking for and expecting.
e.g. In my legacy flight dynamics model, I don't hard-code anything either. Most of the specs for each ship, are derived from data files. So I can basically sit around all day making unique flight models for any ship and be able to test it quickly.
In the Game Builder System (https://steamcommunity.com/app/345580/discussions/2/) (GBS) modding tools which I made public for UCCE 3.0, you will find a file called OBJTEX.SCR which contains such vehicle/ship specific inputs.
Some sample inputs to the flight dynamics system for a carrier, cruiser, transport, fighter
Code: [Select]
# P can pitch
# R can roll
# Y can yaw
# A can fly
# T can translate in XYZ // disabling this prevents object from moving
# E has propulsion system
# G affected by gravity
# U can maneuver while on seabed (otherwise will not be able to move)
# F can float at water level without sinking
# V velocity diffs from orientation
# O orientation independent of velocity
# P pitch rate (d/s) // rate of pitch
# R roll rate (d/s) // rate of roll
# Y yaw rate (d/s) // rate of yaw
# p pitch spin rate (d/s) // rate of spin along pitch axis
# r roll spin rate (d/s) // rate of spin along roll axis
# y yaw spin rate (d/s) // rate of spin along yaw axis
# L low speed limit (m/s) // low speed threshold
# C cruise speed (m/s) // cruise speed threshold
# H high speed limit (m/s) // high speed threshold
# A best acceleration // best acceleration
# D best deceleration // best deceleration. Presently == acceleration
# T rebuild time (min) // unit rebuild time
# J jump transit time (ms) // hyperjump transit duration
# j jump recharge time (ms) // hyperjump engine recharge time
#
BCRUZMK1.3D,BATTLECRUISER MK1,SARc,
?24,*1000,!25000,%150,A0.1768,L150,C275,H400,&1800000,j90000,J80000,P10,R12,Y14,[1500,]2500,^45000,<100,>25000,{1000,}150000,(_PRYATVNEW)
#
WARMONGER.3D,WARMONGER,SARc,
?23,*1000,!30500,%150,A0.2144,L150,C300,H575,&1000000,j45000,J60000,P14,R15,Y18,[2500,]3500,^35000,<100,>25000,{1000,}125000,(_PRYATVNEW)
#
CANLON.3D,CANLON,SARc,
?21,*1000,!22500,%200,A0.1200,L100,C120,H300,j30000,J120000,P12,R16,Y20,[500,]1500,^60000,<100,>25000,{1000,}175000,(_PRYATVNEW)
#
ICMK1.3D,INTERCEPTOR MK1,SARc,
?22,*500,!10000,%125,A0.1068,L125,C305,H650,&600000,j20000,J15000,P22,R30,Y28,[200,]200,^35000,<100,>15000,{50000,}75000,(PRYATVNEW)
This same system is used in my other games like Angle Of Attack & All Aspect Warfare and you can see it in action here:
Post by: jwh1701 on July 06, 2018, 02:50:50 PM
He didn't spend 5 years on it. The doc just explains what he spent 5 yrs doing - and never finishing it.
Thank you for the response, its hard for me to understand Chris requesting something so complex upfront. I have to wonder if there was any cross training before John and others left.
With something so complex seems like this could be another Iffonic disaster with more wasted effort and backer funds. Was that development testing that you were doing on the youtube video? Seemed like you have planetary and ground fps all in one, with atmospheric effects as well.
Post by: DemonInvestor on July 06, 2018, 09:31:37 PM
Thank you for the response, its hard for me to understand Chris requesting something so complex upfront. I have to wonder if there was any cross training before John and others left.
With something so complex seems like this could be another Iffonic disaster with more wasted effort and backer funds. Was that development testing that you were doing on the youtube video? Seemed like you have planetary and ground fps all in one, with atmospheric effects as well.
Well isn't Chris requesting complex systems actually his major problem?
Then again requesting complex system is the easiest thing in the world. Especially when your mind isn't hindered by any training in regards towards technical (and logical) limitations.
Post by: dsmart on July 07, 2018, 04:05:01 AM
Thank you for the response, its hard for me to understand Chris requesting something so complex upfront. I have to wonder if there was any cross training before John and others left.
With something so complex seems like this could be another Iffonic disaster with more wasted effort and backer funds. Was that development testing that you were doing on the youtube video? Seemed like you have planetary and ground fps all in one, with atmospheric effects as well.
Well it's no different from all the promises of drink mixer machines, actual working internal ship systems etc. Did you miss all those ludicrous promises made over the years? My favorite was that one where they were showing working missile tubes in a ship (that's not even in the game). So a complex flight dynamics system is par for the course. If you read JP's design doc (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/ifcs-q-a/1273761) on the IFCS system, you will see how ludicrously complex it is. Which is why it continues to have issues.
Post by: jwh1701 on July 07, 2018, 08:19:16 AM
Well isn't Chris requesting complex systems actually his major problem?
Then again requesting complex system is the easiest thing in the world. Especially when your mind isn't hindered by any training in regards towards technical (and logical) limitations.
That certainly does seem the case.
Well it's no different from all the promises of drink mixer machines, actual working internal ship systems etc. Did you miss all those ludicrous promises made over the years? My favorite was that one where they were showing working missile tubes in a ship (that's not even in the game). So a complex flight dynamics system is par for the course. If you read JP's design doc (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/ifcs-q-a/1273761) on the IFCS system, you will see how ludicrously complex it is. Which is why it continues to have issues.
I always thought he was going over the top in spirit just to excite the whales and milk them for all they had. I did get time to skim through the doc, but this was the first time looking at and ifcs model. But with your response on the ifcs model from earlier it does not make much sense. With so many issues you have to be completely out of touch to request stuff like this while your house is burning down around you.
Post by: helimoth on July 09, 2018, 03:36:06 AM
Well it's no different from all the promises of drink mixer machines
Was hilarious a few years listening to some of the shitizens talking about how they would pursue a career as in-game bartender and were totally serious about it
Post by: Meowz on August 30, 2018, 07:52:24 PM
https://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/citizencon/tickets
https://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Add-Ons/CitizenCon-Digital-Ticket
Post by: Penny579 on August 30, 2018, 10:49:51 PM
how detached from reality are they? who would be surprised they did not sell out .... people aren't taking a holiday in the middle of the week, spending like 1k to come and see a presentation in an expensive venue on what a game might be if it could be developed.
Post by: Resin on August 31, 2018, 12:19:50 AM
Ready for CIG to come out with a 'clarification' when the salt avalanche turns out to be real.....
how detached from reality are they? who would be surprised they did not sell out .... people aren't taking a holiday in the middle of the week, spending like 1k to come and see a presentation in an expensive venue on what a game might be if it could be developed.
That didn't take long and they changed the keynote and closing to be free.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/citizencon-streaming
OMG those comments sucking up to Chris... They literally made me want to vomit.
TL;DR:
The event is three times the attendance and twice the cost (before streaming).
CIG was considering streaming only the keynote or streaming nothing.
CR wanted to stream it all, and do it professionally so they hired a team for "low six-figures."
So they decided to do the pass thing.
One change: The Keynote and closing will now be streamed for everyone. The rest still requires a pass.
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 31, 2018, 01:29:35 AM
Once received, they really don't want to give any money back do they?
Post by: GaryII on August 31, 2018, 02:42:04 AM
2017-10-26 $457,046 $162 million passed at 20:57 UTC+1 Consolidated Outland Pioneer presales started
2017-10-27 $896,567 Citizencon 2017 Consolidated Outland Pioneer regular sale started
2017-10-28 $401,025 $163 million passed at 10:06 UTC+1
2017-10-29 $133,814
2017-10-30 $110,397
so they need extra 20 $ to cover some extra expenses this year...lol
Post by: dsmart on August 31, 2018, 04:36:00 AM
Citizencon is now behind a paywall! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Zelots are already defending it using Blizzard to justify their action, but the r/sc is up in arms. Oh this is too good!
https://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/citizencon/tickets
https://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Add-Ons/CitizenCon-Digital-Ticket
Yeah, it's absolutely amazing to me. I tweeted about this (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1035327999812493319) last night when I found out.
Quote
BREAKING NEWS!!
It appears as if CIG have finally reached the limits of hilarity.
The October CitizenCon is going to be paywalled.
I have reached out to my sources for confirmation because I simply don't believe they're this desperate for money. Wow.
Unlike previous years, they've had a hard time selling tickets this year. And the venue is going to set them back a cool $1M+. So unable to sell tickets, if true, this is their way of forcing backers to pay to watch the event if not attending.
God I hope this is true, and they go through with it; because the fallout would be epic. And we'd be set with lols right through the holidays.
Who am I kidding?
It's Star Citizen. There's always more; and it's always worse.
Yup. They're totally doing it.
I'm laughing so hard right now, I had to re-align my sphincter.
FF to 11:07
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9box4p/confirmation_citizencon_stream_is_a_concierge/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bp1ax/full_presentation_behind_paywall_confirmed_in_faq/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bt490/i_dont_want_to_be_involved_anymore/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bq9zp/the_pledge_cigs_promise_to_treat_backers_with_the/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bovd7/i_support_you_cig_but_i_will_not_be_buying_a/
Post by: dsmart on August 31, 2018, 04:47:16 AM
Post by: Caveat Emptor on August 31, 2018, 06:06:40 AM
DIGITAL goodies!
Which conveniently, doesn't cost CIG anything.
Post by: jwh1701 on August 31, 2018, 08:20:38 AM
Yeah, it's absolutely amazing to me. I tweeted about this (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1035327999812493319) last night when I found out.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9box4p/confirmation_citizencon_stream_is_a_concierge/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bp1ax/full_presentation_behind_paywall_confirmed_in_faq/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bt490/i_dont_want_to_be_involved_anymore/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bq9zp/the_pledge_cigs_promise_to_treat_backers_with_the/
These are the kind of threads that I really enjoy replying to.
Post by: dsmart on August 31, 2018, 09:01:17 AM
Post by: dsmart on August 31, 2018, 09:08:34 AM
Post by: dsmart on August 31, 2018, 09:09:07 AM
Post by: dsmart on August 31, 2018, 09:10:05 AM
Post by: jwh1701 on August 31, 2018, 10:16:53 AM
Post by: N0mad on August 31, 2018, 11:10:56 AM
If CIG are hurting for money this badly then I can't wait to see what stunt they pull next. Maybe a stupidly expensive JPEG sale, Warbond only? Or gold plated armour for slightly less than the going price of actually making it out of real gold? Or nevermind land sales, perhaps they should be selling asteroids? OR Space? Who knows - but it will be hilarious.
Post by: Greggy_D on August 31, 2018, 11:24:27 AM
Hell, even Montoya is mad at them.
Not any longer. His new video today is along the lines of...."Oh, that's not so bad after all."
Post by: dsmart on August 31, 2018, 11:25:04 AM
What's really sad is they think this little bitty minor detail is upsetting. Its the equivalent to seeing some dirt in your drive way and getting upset at it while your oblivious to your whole house on fire.
Yes, it's hilarious that this - THIS - is the one that pushes them over the edge. Not ALL the other shitty things that CIG has done this past year alone.
Meanwhile, this one is 2K+ comments and still going strong
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bovd7/i_support_you_cig_but_i_will_not_be_buying_a/
Post by: dsmart on August 31, 2018, 02:19:31 PM
Well that was quick
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/citizencon-streaming
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl9TOe7XoAAlBTT.jpg)
Post by: DemonInvestor on September 01, 2018, 01:11:02 AM
:emot-lol:
Well that was quick
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/citizencon-streaming (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/citizencon-streaming)
And now we'll most likely get to see how the god emporer will be praised by his plebs for listening to them for once...
Seeing how CIGs tactics are judged compared to EAs and Co. really makes me nauseous. I think social researcher really could have nice field day with CIG and the fan behaviour...
Post by: dsmart on September 01, 2018, 04:21:24 AM
And now we'll most likely get to see how the god emporer will be praised by his plebs for listening to them for once...
Seeing how CIGs tactics are judged compared to EAs and Co. really makes me nauseous. I think social researcher really could have nice field day with CIG and the fan behaviour...
Oh? You think he did this because he's "listening" to them; and not because it's just bad optics one month to the event?
It's all about money. Once again, he planned something that he blew the budget on. Then he tried to get backers to pay for the excess. That's all there is to it. Had he not reversed, it would have tainted the event from now right to Oct 10th. He had to make a choice.
Meanwhile, we're 3K up votes into yet another thread about the latest fiasco
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/9bwpmq/star_citizen_ceo_chris_roberts_reverses/
Post by: dsmart on September 01, 2018, 04:45:53 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9by9nj/an_apology_to_chris/
Post by: jwh1701 on September 01, 2018, 06:26:40 AM
Post by: Spunky Munkee on September 01, 2018, 08:43:33 AM
Seeing how this one went he is probably planning a number of costly changes, only one or two does he mean to keep but after the backers win back a few concessions they allow robbers to win a couple. Anything is possible, especiallly with Star Citizen.
Post by: Bubba on September 01, 2018, 09:45:55 AM
So, no need to posit conspiracy theories or clever maneuvering by CR here. He blew his budget, people weren't buying con tickets, and he tried to grab some more cash.
Post by: N0mad on September 01, 2018, 01:56:15 PM
Perhaps roberts intent was to engraciate himself by first appearing miserly.
Nope, CR is incompetent. They were searching for ways to screw even more cash from the backers and thought that because Blizzard charge for their streams then so can they. I'm willing to bet they only reversed the decision after seeing that nobody was buying the digital tickets, so it was never going to cover the costs of setting it up anyway. If the whales were buying tickets even whilst complaining about it on Reddit then I'm sure they would have persisted with it.
There is no clever plan. CIG are hurting for cash and don't care how bad they look trying to make money, just so long as the whales keep spending.
I fully expect to see even more blatant cash grabs (and bad PR) during the conference.
Post by: jwh1701 on September 01, 2018, 02:36:37 PM
Perhaps roberts intent was to engraciate himself by first appearing miserly.
I will have to go with Bubba on this one as well even though I enjoy a good conspiracy.
My belief on this is Chris still very much removed from reality and oblivious to the ever dimming outlook on SC. I think he still believed he could still pull in crowds of jpg buyers and over budgeted still thinking he's the golden chairman saving gaming industry.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on September 02, 2018, 12:25:02 AM
You might have though that by now they surely would be wondering why those key elements of the game have not appeared, the normal ones that allow hundreds of players into thew same instance. Has the message not gotten through to them that with so much detail or "FIDELITY" there is no way to support this much data being passes back and forth at near real time speeds?
I as a hobbyist use a digital audio workstation and at higher settings it can be difficult to maintain very low to no latency (delay between the notes being played and hearing the notes) thus throwing the feel of playing the instrument off when moitoring a performance. Now i know there are ways for the interface to have no latency but the point is that if a PC in my home has difficulty bouncing around and processing all these bytes of information playing computer controlled samples through soft synthesizers and reassembling it with no detectable latency (or low latency through the use of buffers) then how the hell can Robbers expect to transmit all this info needed to support this level of detail across the internet and back to all the other players and not have massive lag or lag that causes bugs, crashes ect?
It just boggles the mind that they cant see it. After all of these years with all those millions of dollars being thrown at it you would figure that this has got to be one of, if not the single most important task to address because without eliminating this lag and or ability to have a significantly higher player count ( I think it all amounts to data anyway) they can have no MMO. But 6+ years in and they have no answers, just more plans. It almost is like the 5 year plans from Russia back in the day. They have nothing to do with reality and anybody who actually looks at it knows its all bullshit. But they just have to watch the grand ball because watching that stumblefuck trip over his lies makes everything right. Like an abused spouse thinking this year he or she will be different, he or she will stop screwing around this time.
At least Roberts will be good for some laughs as he usually is. Meme worthy.
Post by: DemonInvestor on September 02, 2018, 01:53:10 AM
Oh? You think he did this because he's "listening" to them; and not because it's just bad optics one month to the event?
It's all about money. Once again, he planned something that he blew the budget on. Then he tried to get backers to pay for the excess. That's all there is to it. Had he not reversed, it would have tainted the event from now right to Oct 10th. He had to make a choice.
Meanwhile, we're 3K up votes into yet another thread about the latest fiasco
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/9bwpmq/star_citizen_ceo_chris_roberts_reverses/
Nah... i was just thinking that his fans will it as if he's such a benevolent guy, that he really listens to them and praise him for it. Instead of realizing that the pressure here was simply not in his favour. And sure, the circumstance are very important here.
And i don't think he blew a real budget, as i don't think he did real budgeting. A more important motive imho is that they wanted to gain control of which voices would be heard first with the streams. So limiting who will be streaming and who gets it, might have been an important factor. But the blew that... .
But you're totally right about CRoberts acting because of the circumstances and he needed to react because of business.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on September 02, 2018, 10:22:01 AM
JUST KIDDING!
I dont want to be accused of violence here! Some people have no sense of humor. Life is short enough without going to prison for the likes of Clit Robbers.
Post by: dsmart on October 16, 2018, 05:46:30 AM
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/188332576459587584/501706674336301076/unknown.png)
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/confirmation-statement-guidance
Quote
It’s a criminal offence not to file your statement within 14 days of the end of the review period. If you don’t file, your company and its officers may be prosecuted. Your company may also be struck off the register.
Post by: jwh1701 on October 16, 2018, 10:16:00 AM
Well, we're now in criminal behavior territory as they haven't filed accounts (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227) for CIG (the parent company that owns/runs/funds RSI and F42)
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/confirmation-statement-guidance
I'm really amazed they have not filed since they certainly seem to be lacking morality through out the life of this tech demo. Could they not like everything else they have and fudged the numbers enough to get it filed.
Can anyone theorize why they are delaying, this would be my real question.
Update: Just saw they updated thread concerning the accounting, it seems they are and have been running loose with the accounting practices.
Post by: dsmart on October 16, 2018, 12:21:15 PM
Post by: StanTheMan on October 16, 2018, 08:45:08 PM
Another waste of Backers funds.
Post by: dsmart on October 22, 2018, 09:40:11 AM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1054403253096583168
Post by: jwh1701 on October 22, 2018, 02:02:11 PM
Ben Lesnick
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1054403253096583168
I thought he was a little off, but it shows Chris's nepotism has really helped him bring the dumpster fire to full burn.
Post by: dsmart on October 22, 2018, 02:33:48 PM
I thought he was a little off, but it shows Chris's nepotism has really helped him bring the dumpster fire to full burn.
Well someone alerted him to my thread. He immediately went on a banning spree on his Discord channel :emot-lol: It's almost as if I struck a nerve.
Post by: StanTheMan on October 22, 2018, 05:47:13 PM
Post by: dsmart on October 23, 2018, 03:08:09 AM
So what is the allegation... he was manipulating CIGs system so he could get free ships then selling them on Grey Market ..or just buying up limited edition ships and selling them on the Grey Market ?
No clue how he was procuring the ships; but the allegation is that him and others were engaged in Grey market ship sales for quite a long period of time.
Post by: StanTheMan on October 23, 2018, 03:28:15 AM
In 2014/15 I looked at the SC Grey Market for the first time and it was obvious then that there were a few very well stocked "stores". You only get to that position if you have access to people wanting to sell their assets and there were not that many sites around mirroring reddit (in English).
You wondered where they were getting their supply from and why people would be willing to risk losing their ships/accounts when the sums involved were so high.
It is one thing for a teenager to level an account up then decide to sell it but another for an adult to want to sell a SC ship for a game not released and potentially worth more when the expected game is released. Sure there are some people that would want to liquidise their assets but not that many and it all represented a significant risk for the people buying them and holding stock.
If they are stolen from accounts or you have gotten them free the risk of an actual monetary loss is obviously a lot smaller. As it is operating as an agent or other middleman putting a seller and buyer together but that also implies a much more time consuming arrangement. You have to find people willing to sell, gain their trust and go off and do work to find buyers etc...
So it is plausible that people with large lists of ships for sale were either hacking accounts, or otherwise getting them free.
Then you have the money laundering side .
someone like Ben wouldn't have the experience to manage an operation like this unless he had been trading in other markets prior to SC. He also wouldn't have the time or the inclination if he was working for CIG.
What would be more plausible to me would be someone outside approaching certain SC staff and coming up with an arrangement to buy ships/accounts on a regular basis or bumping into them when they were selling say one of their own ships (possibly legitimately as far as their Employment Contract was concerned) then that escalating into a much more serious/regular arrangement that made them a useful income on the side.
People of Lesnicks age that have a career are less likely to take a risk like this but Ben hadn't had a typical career so perhaps he lacked judgement. He would maybe have had access to accounts early on because processes were not in place to protect accounts particularly from employees or prevent them being created with a supply of free ships by someone on the inside..
If he was getting slighted and falling out of favour he might have been tempted later on in his SC career..
Anyhow in the absence of evidence it is all speculation.
Post by: jwh1701 on October 23, 2018, 06:53:38 AM
I did a bit of trading in the SC Grey Market but my RMT experience came from several years in Warcraft, Aion etc farming and selling currency and buying accounts.
People over the years have lost substantial money in the SC grey market, I would suspect even the most over the top speculation as to what or who was involved.
Post by: Meowz on October 23, 2018, 07:01:00 AM
No clue how he was procuring the ships; but the allegation is that him and others were engaged in Grey market ship sales for quite a long period of time.His wife was in CS no? Wouldn't be hard for her to generate some JEPGs, judging from my past reactions the logs are not very well kept and they can pretty much do whatever they want. From day one they said the 890J was not available as a CCU, I sent them a ticket asking to upgrade my ship to my reserved 890J from Citcon. Once it became clear I had no intent of buying the 890J if it wasn't a CCU (was like a $60 difference) they allowed it.
Point being CS can bend the rules and generate ships np and no one holds them to any standard beyond profit. She could of easily made a bunch of ships for BL to sell for personal profit.
Post by: StanTheMan on October 23, 2018, 06:05:29 PM
His wife was in CS no? Wouldn't be hard for her to generate some JEPGs, judging from my past reactions the logs are not very well kept and they can pretty much do whatever they want. From day one they said the 890J was not available as a CCU, I sent them a ticket asking to upgrade my ship to my reserved 890J from Citcon. Once it became clear I had no intent of buying the 890J if it wasn't a CCU (was like a $60 difference) they allowed it.
Point being CS can bend the rules and generate ships np and no one holds them to any standard beyond profit. She could of easily made a bunch of ships for BL to sell for personal profit.
That is plenty of opportunity and incentive right there.
A robbed ship once a week would add up to a tidy sum
Post by: jwh1701 on October 24, 2018, 10:37:46 AM
Truly amazing, kept trying to watch for lod issues.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/9r0xhf/unity_megacity_demo/
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on October 25, 2018, 12:25:39 AM
I thought they said it was coming with Hurston though? Anyone get the feeling that they have realised that the servers can't handle all the new stuff from adding more planets and moons, or the fact it is still sending all updates to all clients is really causing issues now?
Prediction: Hurston gets pushed out of 3.3.5, initially to 3.4, then beyond. They may partially integrate some of it to keep the whales happy and spending.
Post by: jwh1701 on October 25, 2018, 07:03:37 AM
957 million
https://coriolis.io/outfit/imperial_cutter?code=A2putuFplxdusCf60H0v0v0r272727040404040404040j4p611K1K1K1K1K1K1K6l2h.Iw18ZFA%3D.Aw18ZFA%3D.H4sIAAAAAAAAA2P4x87AwPCXFUhw72FiYOBt4GFgEIwAsoR2cDMwqHxhZGD4z%2FjPHqboTw2Q4DjCycDAb%2FPt%2F3%2BxBfxAeaZ%2FYnD5EiDBr%2FLr%2F3%2BRN0BCFCQvsYGFgUG5QByokvmfFEwlWBHYEpEaUaCiO0DB%2F6z%2FbOEmNYAUKfgBXQKSkvD48v%2F%2Ff%2F5%2FrnD5OSB5kJSQQSlQHuQm%2BRt8QEMEiFEkSIwiIWIUCROjSIQYRaLEKBL%2F5wtTxCTx5%2F9%2FNlDoclsyA6PtHpAQBSlS2QOM1f8S%2FzxBKplBxrUCCcYLQFH2Hz%2F%2B%2F1cHGawADtH%2FDCgAAIfedBcQAgAA.EweloBhA2AWEoFMCGBzANokICMF8KERA&bn=cutter%20tank%20build%202
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on October 26, 2018, 10:21:02 AM
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on October 27, 2018, 12:51:55 AM
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history
Post by: Slapmeandcallmegurl on October 27, 2018, 02:31:38 AM
It didn't take 5 days, the financial filing is up now! Any of you smart people want to take a look? It seems to show that the cost per year is 17mil or so, and they have 4mil cash on hand with the loan due as far as I can see, but it's not my field of expertise.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history
Deary me no, you must be mistaken. They ran out of money years ago.
Post by: Spunky Munkee on October 27, 2018, 02:33:59 AM
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on October 27, 2018, 02:44:10 AM
I wonder if they are just hiding any income in one of their other many corporate shells that feed this shell. The British corporation existing for the sole reason to take tax rebates. I'll leave it to those better suited to examine this. If things were this grim you would think they would be laying off staff by the hundreds.
Yes, they feed money into this company to fund development in the UK, it is more interesting because it shows how much the UK studio is costing them.
We don't have an idea about the US parent companies finances.
Post by: Motto on October 27, 2018, 05:59:19 AM
I wonder if they are just hiding any income in one of their other many corporate shells that feed this shell. The British corporation existing for the sole reason to take tax rebates. I'll leave it to those better suited to examine this. If things were this grim you would think they would be laying off staff by the hundreds.
It are the figures up to 31/12/2017. Almost 10 months have passed again, so a lot could have (has) happened since then.
Post by: dsmart on October 27, 2018, 06:25:06 AM
It are the figures up to 31/12/2017. Almost 10 months have passed again, so a lot could have (has) happened since then.
I am actually doing a write-up about the filing right this moment.
Post by: dsmart on October 27, 2018, 06:26:19 AM
Deary me no, you must be mistaken. They ran out of money years ago.
Thanks for revealing yourself. Now we can resume fun conversations. Keep it civil and clean though, so you don't get banned.
Post by: N0mad on October 27, 2018, 06:44:10 AM
I'm sure the costs of running all the studios has been estimated already but it doesn't hurt to confirm with new figures.
Post by: dsmart on October 27, 2018, 09:10:41 AM
Do we have any idea about how many employees are at their UK studio(s)?
I'm sure the costs of running all the studios has been estimated already but it doesn't hurt to confirm with new figures.
It's in their latest financial filing. See my just released article.
Post by: dsmart on November 23, 2018, 04:43:10 AM
8am PST / 11am EST
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//16849-Anniversary-Promotion-Free-Fly-Details
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 12, 2018, 07:19:01 AM
Post by: Motto on December 12, 2018, 07:49:03 AM
Reddit Refund thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/a5hmvf/cloud_imperium_games_uk_ltd_has_some_new_owners/)
Post by: dsmart on December 12, 2018, 07:50:07 AM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1072861528632766464
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 12, 2018, 07:58:12 AM
Yeah, I am working on this atm. In the meantime, I have a series of Tweets. I have to run, so please post the link on /r/refunds if you can
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1072861528632766464
Good twitter thread btw.
Post by: dsmart on December 12, 2018, 08:21:11 AM
Twitlonger thread: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqocrf
(https://i.imgur.com/0j5LSzU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/gYEPkcJ.png)
(https://imgur.com/l51qCSF.png)
You could say I called it....
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/188332576459587584/501706674336301076/unknown.png)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuOY9ckWwAAN_7g.jpg)
http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6682/
UPDATE 2
(https://imgur.com/p14EWe6.jpg)
The statement of capital filing is online
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history
They sold each share in May 2018 @ Ł149.63 per share. Chris, Erin, Ortwin sold shares to Infatrade and cashed out, thus taking money out of the company again. Indus & Erloch get a piece of the action to the tune of Ł17M which goes into the company. That's about 10% of the company sold. Considering their burn rate, that Ł17M in dark money is probably all gone by now. In fact, that's about 6 months of funding for F42 alone.
| CIG | 113861 | Ł17,037,021.43 |
| Chris | 14598 | Ł2,184,298.74 |
| Errin | 1301 | Ł194,668.63 |
| Ortwin | 2601 | Ł389,187.63 |
UPDATE 1
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1073588553752461312.html
Post by: jwh1701 on December 12, 2018, 09:08:27 AM
Yeah, I am working on this atm. In the meantime, I have a series of Tweets. I have to run, so please post the link on /r/refunds if you can
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1072861528632766464
You made it on reddit less than 17mins ago.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ThNZfS9V/screenshot-19.jpg) (http://postimg.cc/ThNZfS9V)
Post by: dsmart on December 12, 2018, 09:17:37 AM
Post by: jwh1701 on December 12, 2018, 09:20:50 AM
Yeah, nobody pays attention to those lunatics. The real action is in /r/starcitizen and /r/starcitizen_refunds
They do provide extra lols but I have never posted once in that the drama not even worth trolling.
Post by: jwh1701 on December 12, 2018, 12:23:51 PM
Someone spotted that adding up the transferred shares of creators Chris Roberts, Erin Roberts, Ortwin Freyermuth adds up to the 18500 shares transferred to Infratrade Group Corp - which appears to be a new shell company with zero online presence.
I am willing to bet that new shell co is owned by those three.
Nothing would surprise me Ortwin very much reminds me of my mega-millionaire aunt I disowned 15 years ago. Every waking moment is about money and how to take it from others.
Post by: McDrake on December 12, 2018, 01:59:32 PM
:)
Looks like, we are at the final chapter.
Post by: dsmart on December 12, 2018, 02:26:51 PM
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02861107/
https://imdb.com/company/co0293395/
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 12, 2018, 03:00:49 PM
Maybe Sandi will ask him some tough questions again?
Post by: Caveat Emptor on December 13, 2018, 12:08:18 PM
Post by: dsmart on December 15, 2018, 05:24:57 AM
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history
(https://imgur.com/p14EWe6.jpg)
They sold each share in May 2018 @ Ł149.63 per share. Chris, Erin, Ortwin sold shares to Infatrade and cashed out, thus taking money out of the company again. Indus & Erloch get a piece of the action to the tune of Ł17M which goes into the company. That's about 10% of the company sold. Considering their burn rate, that Ł17M in dark money is probably all gone by now. In fact, that's about 6 months of funding for F42 alone.
| CIG | 113861 | Ł17,037,021.43 |
| Chris | 14598 | Ł2,184,298.74 |
| Errin | 1301 | Ł194,668.63 |
| Ortwin | 2601 | Ł389,187.63 |
Post by: Slapmeandcallmegurl on December 15, 2018, 02:45:01 PM
Post by: jwh1701 on December 15, 2018, 05:52:17 PM
But how can they take money out of a company that has no money?
Maybe someone with more understanding can elaborate but it appears they created the shares for pennies on the dollar?
Then turned around and sold them for a substantial amount, I have trouble believing you do not find any of this disturbing. Chris has stated over and over the spigot can be cutoff and he can finish both games so why does he need spend time creating shares and shell companies?
Post by: N0mad on December 16, 2018, 02:56:04 AM
Maybe someone with more understanding can elaborate but it appears they created the shares for pennies on the dollar?
Just so you know - I'm not an expert in this area so I'm hoping someone else can explain, but...
Creating shares for fractions of pennies isn't the issue here. That's just how shares are initially created in a new company. The issue is who in their right mind thinks the company is worth anything now? Channelling it through shell companies held offshore is a way to obfuscate the identity of the buyer. That's the issue.
If the companies involved are tied to Chris and Ortwin in some way as well then that raises the suspicion that the source of funds may well be backer money, siphoned from the parent company in the US via these shell companies. There could be a variety of legal ways to get the money into the shell companies: CIG USA could "invest" money into them, they could purchase non existent services from those companies or they could have sold IP to these companies for pence but get the parent company to licence it back at huge expense. None of this will be proven until Discovery reveals the details of CIG's finances!
Post by: dsmart on December 16, 2018, 05:36:09 AM
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/349267422?t=01h14m05s
Post by: dsmart on December 16, 2018, 05:45:11 AM
But how can they take money out of a company that has no money?
Jesus fucking Christ! Seriously?
| CIG | 113861 | Ł17,037,021.43 |
| Chris | 14598 | Ł2,184,298.74 |
| Errin | 1301 | Ł194,668.63 |
| Ortwin | 2601 | Ł389,187.63 |
- Dec 2013 the company was formed with standard 100 (CR=85, ER=5,OF=10) shares valued @ Ł1 each
- Dec 2017 they sub-divided those to 1,000,000 shares valued @ Ł0.10p each
- They sold personal shares (14595+1301+2601 = 18500) to Infatrade @ Ł149.63 each
- Infatrade gave money, which went into their personal bank accounts
- They sold company pool shares (113651) to Indus & Erloch @ Ł149.63 each
- Indus & Erloch gave money which goes into the CIG bank account
It's all there in the PUBLIC filings
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history
(https://i.imgur.com/0j5LSzU.png)
Post by: Slapmeandcallmegurl on December 17, 2018, 07:38:25 AM
Ok.
Post by: Motto on December 17, 2018, 07:48:31 AM
Oh, why do even I bother?
Post by: Slapmeandcallmegurl on December 17, 2018, 08:56:43 AM
Oh Jezus Fucking Christ, can't you even read? Personal shares are sold and that money goes into personal accounts. Public shares are sold and that money flows back into the company account.
Oh, why do even I bother?
Net result though is CIG bank balance increases though right?
Post by: Motto on December 17, 2018, 08:59:45 AM
By selling public shares money does flow back into the company. But that was not your statement.
Now tell me, why do you have to sell 10% of your company's public shares for 17 million when you have raised almost 210 million dollar just by public crowdfunding/selling? When at 65 million you already had enough to finish the game even when all the funding would dry up immediatly?
Post by: dsmart on December 17, 2018, 10:09:44 AM
Net result though is CIG bank balance increases though right?
Not with the personal money. No.
Post by: dsmart on December 17, 2018, 10:10:18 AM
Is CIG looking to sell?
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1074708047874936833
Post by: jwh1701 on December 17, 2018, 10:46:01 AM
BREAKING NEWS
Is CIG looking to sell?
Like watching the old soap operas, always some new twist and turns. I would be so upset if they can sell this off and walk away free with all the money siphoned off.
Post by: Slapmeandcallmegurl on December 17, 2018, 11:08:42 AM
Not with the personal money. No.
So by stating that money goes into CIG's bank account you were saying...ermmm...what exactly?
Post by: dsmart on December 17, 2018, 11:13:27 AM
So by stating that money goes into CIG's bank account you were saying...ermmm...what exactly?
I swear you're just asking to be banned now.
Personal (Chris, Erin, Ortwin) share sales go into their bank accounts.
Company (CIG) share sales go into the CIG bank account.
Which part are you struggling with?
Post by: Slapmeandcallmegurl on December 17, 2018, 11:18:43 AM
I swear you're just asking to be banned now.
Personal (Chris, Erin, Ortwin) share sales go into their bank accounts.
Company (CIG) share sales go into the CIG bank account.
Which part are you struggling with?
I'm struggling with the part where CIG getting millions of dollars for selling a small amount of equity, is a bad thing for CIG.
Post by: Motto on December 17, 2018, 11:44:42 AM
And if it really was good news for CIG, why haven't they announced it the minute the deal was done? Why keep it hush hush and make no mention of it yourself, even after filing the financial records?
You can't be thát stupid, you must be trolling.
Just for the record, dear Serenstupidity, please explain why a company that is financially sound with having raised 210 million dollars, would sell 10% of the public shares for 17 million to shady companies?
Post by: dsmart on December 17, 2018, 11:46:51 AM
I'm struggling with the part where CIG getting millions of dollars for selling a small amount of equity, is a bad thing for CIG.
Nice try at deflection. That's a completely different conversation that I'm no mood to engage in because I refuse to believe you're this dumb.
Post by: N0mad on December 17, 2018, 04:47:17 PM
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 17, 2018, 09:13:22 PM
If it was anywhere close to completion why wouldn't Robbers release it to get more attention for Star Citizen? If it was good there could be no better advertising. The fact that he doesnt say anything about S42 is probably a strong indicator that it's on the back burner, if not cancelled internally.
Why do I say mismanaged? Well if he has had to take loans and sell stock he in all likelyhood needs money. Obviously as Robbers said himself that if he needed money to complete SC he would push S42 to completion and use the sales revenue to fund ongoing work on SC. You dont see S42 though. A smart buisnessman would have prioritized at least a limited release to generate income and buzz but he has failed to take advantage of this. It's not as if he is unaware of the potential this release can have on support. It is more that they are far from completing S42.
Who knows? Perhaps he cannot afford to pay the actors the salaries he promised for their participation. Regardless for one reason or another he seemingly cannot deiver on any of his projects. This is nothing new for Chris Robbers, he left his last dream game project in shambles for Microsoft to sort out,. There will be no Microsoft bailout this time. Regardless if it is his original timeline or his multiple revised timelines, he simply cannot get this pig to fly.
Post by: StanTheMan on December 17, 2018, 09:22:50 PM
BREAKING NEWS
Is CIG looking to sell?
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1074708047874936833
As he joined in May he has had time to get his feet under the table..so we might expect things to happen sooner rather than later.
Do you think his appointment is related to Erin stepping back from his role ?
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 17, 2018, 09:29:55 PM
The problem is that S42 may be more an idea than a game. Yeah there are assets and contracts with actors but we dont know what he promised to pay them, how much work
The fact the Squander 42 roadmap has been delayed year after year tells me it is so far away that they don't feel comfortable letting the backers see how long it is going to be, even with their bullshit timelines that will inevitably slip further and further away.
I really can't see a situation where Squander 42 has been kept under wraps and is actually a lot further along than we think, Roberts would have had some gameplay at CitizenScam this year and they would be showing it off all the time in their numerous media channels as an example of their progress.
If the project relies on Squander 42 for its financial survival then it is doomed, best case scenario they will rush it out to bring in some cash and it will get panned.
Post by: N0mad on December 18, 2018, 03:16:33 AM
The fact the Squander 42 roadmap has been delayed year after year tells me it is so far away that they don't feel comfortable letting the backers see how long it is going to be, even with their bullshit timelines that will inevitably slip further and further away.
That's not my point. SQ42 is no where to be seen because Chris is so obsessed with the PU and building the next shiny ship / tech demo. Instead of trying to build, then rework ships all the time or struggle with complex broken physics and netcode: SQ42 could be scaled down to be a much more traditional single player level based game. A publisher could get that out of the door in a couple of years fairly easily. The problem is that it wouldn't fit the "vision".
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 18, 2018, 03:57:38 AM
It's common sense that if he COULD do it he would release it. It would go a long way towards giving his project a sense of legitimacy, something clearly lacking in the gaming community at large. Personally I dont think they are even close to having their ducks in a row. Aside from that no publisher would have anything to do with Chis Robbers. He has an incredibly bad reputation. I am certain that he would want all kinds of strings and creative control and nobody would agree to his conditions.
Could it happen in a perfect world where Chris Robbers has a stroke? Perhaps. Nobody will ever know because that prick will ride this horse till it's shit out every last backer dollar there is to take. Then he will sell retro T shirts to the weepy backers because he has the rights to this failed project. I bet they would buy them too.
The deluxe Chris Robbers commemorative T shirt "I spent my childrens college fund on Star Citizen and got divorced and all I got was this fucking T shirt with Chris Robbers body odor " "I'll never wash it" declared a former backer as he watched the internet every day for years seaching for news of a publisher looking to buy the rights to the project.
The End.
Post by: N0mad on December 18, 2018, 04:12:17 AM
Post by: Motto on December 18, 2018, 05:17:21 AM
Post by: N0mad on December 18, 2018, 09:31:07 AM
It was my understanding that Squander 42 was to be build on the same foundation as SC.
Which is pretty much BS and an excuse for CIG not to work on it. No game dev has ever set out to make a single player game by making an MMO first.
Nor would it have to be built "from scratch", you can take all the existing art assets and build a more traditional single player Cryengine "level" out of it. You can chuck all the broken physics, netcode and AI - just use the Cryengine default implementations instead.
Post by: Motto on December 18, 2018, 09:42:21 AM
No game dev has ever set out to make a single player game by making an MMO first.
I wouldn't state that so boldly. That's just something Chris might actually do :azn:
Post by: dsmart on December 18, 2018, 01:43:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/h0SyabY.jpg)
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 18, 2018, 01:59:00 PM
Aside from the delayed filing of this investment and new director appointment, it's also curious that even though Dan was appointed on Mar 23, 2018, when they filed (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history) their 2017 financial statement (my review (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6723/)) on Oct 26, 2018, they never listed him as a director. This is required by law; and yet somehow the auditors missed or deliberately omitted this. Had he been listed, we would have known about his appointment back in Oct.
(https://i.imgur.com/h0SyabY.jpg)
Mistakes or omissions on CIG filings? That's not like them!
Post by: krylite on December 18, 2018, 03:44:33 PM
Could it happen in a perfect world where Chris Robbers has a stroke? Perhaps. Nobody will ever know because that prick will ride this horse till it's shit out every last backer dollar there is to take. Then he will sell retro T shirts to the weepy backers because he has the rights to this failed project. I bet they would buy them too.
The deluxe Chris Robbers commemorative T shirt "I spent my childrens college fund on Star Citizen and got divorced and all I got was this fucking T shirt with Chris Robbers body odor " "I'll never wash it" declared a former backer as he watched the internet every day for years seaching for news of a publisher looking to buy the rights to the project.
The End.
I can just see it , ten years from now, after all the fracus from the collapse has settled. CR continues to siphon the backers with the cutsenes of SQ42 and the genre actors sold as a semi-"interactive" Steam video movie. Then steam comments by former backers and shitizens still blaming goons, "DS was right" and this site, and possibly even FDev! for SC's failure, lol.
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 20, 2018, 11:06:15 AM
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/roadmap/board/2-Squadron-42
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 20, 2018, 11:36:59 AM
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/16912-Letter-From-The-Chairman
Post by: dsmart on December 20, 2018, 11:43:01 AM
http://gamasutra.com/view/news/333313/Cloud_Imperium_raises_46M_from_private_investment.php
They have updated the UK listing showing that Ezer Eli KLEIN, one of the officers of Infatrade (the investor of this deal) is now a director of CIG, joining industry heavyweight Dan Offner who I revealed earlier this week.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/officers
Remember when I said Dan was either an investor or representing the investors?
So there you have it folks, nothing further can be said here, other than this is history repeating itself.
I can't say I'm surprised because for YEARS I've been saying THIS was going to happen.
Chris Roberts also wrote a blog about the news. Funny how I get to break all these news, long before he does. So much for transparency. Also, this happen back in May!!
https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/letter-from-the-chairman/investment-news
They have also now published their financials. Funny how investors can make you do things. Chris Roberts burned through ALL this money without ever shipping a SINGLE one of the two products. The project - as I had predicted - is running in the RED. Hence investors.
https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cfo-comment-2012-2017-financials
https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cloud-imperium-investment-fact-sheet
(https://cloudimperiumgames.com/uploads/0253570a96344fccbc94519888ff9f09.png)
(https://imgur.com/vc72ORm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/e0DibMr.jpg)
And the Squadron 42 roadmap is now online.
Q2/2020 for the BETA. I can't even stop laughing.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/roadmap/board/2-Squadron-42/info
There you have it folks.
(https://imgur.com/EBzch8j.jpg)
Post by: Aya Reiko on December 20, 2018, 12:36:36 PM
Though 2017, CiG has only earned approx. $182.7 mil through pledges (so they claim). And $12.7 come through subs.
I'd like to know how much is left? My bets are on "somewhere around <$0" without loans to keep it afloat.
Post by: jham on December 20, 2018, 03:11:40 PM
Post by: dsmart on December 20, 2018, 04:52:38 PM
That "Letter from the Chairman" is such bullcrap! He makes it sound like he bumped into billionaire Clive Calder at the local Starbucks and they felt so much mutual love that they just had to go into business together. :emot-lol:
:emot-lol: you noticed too, huh? Remember back in Sept 2017 article (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/5764/) where I said:
"Rumors and unconfirmed reports have been swirling for months that they’re running out of money to complete these projects, that they’ve been seeking external investor funding, trying to take advantage of tax credits etc. Even over in the UK, where reports like this come out, there is no evidence of them ever filing with the BFI if they did in fact take advantage of UK tax credits. If they’re out trying to raise investor money, it should come as a complete shock to anyone who thinks that $112M should have been enough to, you know, develop the game as promised. All the negativity surrounding the game, the shitty and toxic community that has sprung up around it; the aforementioned videos of a shitty tech-demo (aka CryEngine mod) everyone is now laughing (1, 2) at, are collectively likely to affect any efforts to raise money outside of a bunch of gullible whales firmly entrenched in sunk cost fallacy and cognitive dissonance. Here’s the thing, any investor or investment banker looking to invest in a project which, for five years, has raised over $112M (that we know of) for a project that the creator was originally asking $2M from the public, should be doing extensive research into all the execs associated with this project."
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 20, 2018, 10:07:47 PM
NEWS, Chris Roberts has lied to us for years. His schedules were lies, He lied denying that there were investors for years, He claimed that CIG was sitting in the black and had plenty of money to see things through to the end, and he lied in claiming there will never be investors at the onset.
What Backers See, Oh there is a new schedule and the game will be delivered next year! We have new partners to help us get the game out HORAY!
No anger that they were lied to, no suspicion that once again the schedule isnt more toilet tissue, no concerns that these new investors wont be looking for a serious return on investment via heavy monetization. What drugs are they on? Nobody invests many millions without taking some control. I am sure they wont want to be bought out. They will ensure that these hapless suckers are squeezed early and often. Lets just see how pricey ammo and repairs become. I guarantee that CIG will make EA and Bethesda look like angels. These guys wont even bother to spit on it before they stick it in.
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 21, 2018, 12:42:42 AM
Quote from: Spunky Munkee
I guarantee that CIG will make EA and Bethesda look like angels. These guys wont even bother to spit on it before they stick it in.
They already do make them look like angels. Can you imagine EA doing any of the predatory shit that CIG do? Only in their wildest dreams.
$200m raised from backers and the game is still not finished and will require more funds to get there. The whales are going to be getting milked and milked hard just to get it over the line, all for a game with no mass market appeal, what happens then? That's right more milking!
I keep thinking this story is going to go quiet for a while and I'll do following the action, then boom! Something happens...
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 21, 2018, 05:46:06 AM
Post by: dsmart on December 21, 2018, 07:21:08 AM
But if you are familiar with investments, then you should already know about these two things which are certain to be how/why they did this deal.
The Liquidation Preference
When you invest real cash money in what could be charitably called a speculative venture, you typically agree on a higher valuation in exchange for protection on your investment – the liquidation preference
So if I invest $50 million in a company I think is only worth $100 million, and the seller would like the valuation to be $500 million, I might ask for an 4x LP as a condition of agreement.
What this means is that if the company sells for, $500 million, I will take my investment times four out first, before other owners – $200 million out of the $500 million. If the company sells for $100 million, I will take the entire $100 million, and other owners will go away with nothing.
The reason it’s called a preference is that often the investor who holds the LP clause can force management to sell when they would rather not – they can induce the liquidation of the firm whenever they want, more or less.
Convertible Notes
As an additional protection, the investment is usually convertible, from stock to debt, sometimes high-interest debt, at the investor’s choice.
The specific amount of debt is never less than the cash value of the investment. The interest rate is never 0. Exactly how big the debt, and how nasty the interest, is negotiated.
I expect that SC’s new investor has both these terms, plus quite a number of other ones, to protect their investment.
VCs put money into pretty crazy ventures, and they want either explosive growth, or a fast liquidation, so they can re-invest the money before their current fund closes. You’ll notice how both these terms point in that direction. (An LP is, obviously, a liquidation. Converting your note gives the firm huge incentive to either solicit new investment or borrow money from someone else to pay you off.)
So there’s someone out there that might have the ability to force cig into liquidation if they feel they won’t be able to get their 46 million back?
Essentially yes
The one-two punch of L.P. and convertibility means the investors are likely to shitcan the company the minute they don’t like the story
Bear in mind they will expect 500MM to 5B of return on their 50MM investment. That’s not a typo. 10x is a minimum. 100x is the target return on a successful VC investment.
If it doesn’t look like 10x returns are coming on a very short horizon, they will pressure management to raise more money to expand and improve the odds, or liquidate immediately.
VC doesn’t want to see you piddle along with a modestly successful business. Go to the moon, or eat shit and die. Nothing in between.
NOTE: For anyone who thinks this is a credulous music industry idiot meddling, do note that his board appointee is a Silicon Valley lawyer who specializes in VC. This deal passed his highly paid “family office” investors. They intend to get paid.
Post by: N0mad on December 21, 2018, 07:52:03 AM
Post by: DemonInvestor on December 21, 2018, 08:15:25 AM
Post by: dsmart on December 21, 2018, 09:26:43 AM
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history
Post by: StanTheMan on December 21, 2018, 01:26:08 PM
In today's UK filing, we find out that back in Nov, they changed the name of the parent company from Cloud Imperium Games, to Cloud Imperium. They're only just now filing that too.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history
Because they want to be able to diversify ?
Post by: Greggy_D on December 21, 2018, 02:08:33 PM
Post by: dsmart on December 24, 2018, 11:51:11 AM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1077272581974175744
Post by: jham on December 24, 2018, 01:34:14 PM
Post by: N0mad on December 24, 2018, 02:52:57 PM
I wonder if the new investors are demanding things like this.
Clearly there's a new push for SQ42. I wonder if the new investors are holding Chris's feet to the fire and making sure he gets things done as promised.
... I just read that last sentence again and laughed. I guess the bigger question is: what will the investors do when Chris fails to stick to the schedule?
Post by: Greggy_D on December 24, 2018, 08:50:29 PM
Clearly there's a new push for SQ42.
You're right. Clearly they think it's the easiest to bang out in the shortest amount of time vs. The Verse SC MMO.
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 25, 2018, 12:56:34 AM
Apparently SQ42 on consoles is a thing again
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1077272581974175744
But muh FIDELITY!? :((((((
Post by: N0mad on December 25, 2018, 01:04:30 AM
Clearly there's a new push for SQ42. I wonder if the new investors are holding Chris's feet to the fire and making sure he gets things done as promised.
OR, since Keith Calder is a film producer. Maybe when Chris can't make the game before the money runs out, perhaps the investors will own the SQ42 rights and make a movie out of it? Better yet, it could be a CG sci-fi series since they can use all the mo-cap work and art assets. I bet Netflix would pay top dollar for something like that. They could even keep Chris Roberts on as a "consultant".
Post by: dsmart on December 25, 2018, 06:26:59 AM
I wonder if the new investors are demanding things like this.
I don't think so. They already know that whale milk saturation is a thing and that SQ42 needs to make money. It won't make as much because they already pre-sold so many units already. So it makes sense that they would at least consider bringing it to consoles. Especially since SQ42 isn't as big as Star Citizen, doesn't have the networking which is one of the most problematic areas etc. Also, early access is a thing on consoles no; so they won't even be subject to stringent guidelines.
Post by: Bubba on December 25, 2018, 03:15:35 PM
Post by: Caveat Emptor on December 25, 2018, 05:12:14 PM
It will be a comedy .
Post by: Motto on December 25, 2018, 05:25:41 PM
Post by: Spunky Munkee on December 25, 2018, 09:04:46 PM
They will follow in EA's and Bethesda's path and monetize the shit out of it. Yes, Even Squadron 42. As you said they sold it to mosxt of the limited market for that style game. It's a sort of captive audience just as Star citizen is. You have to know that Robbers had plans to monetize Star Citizen shamelessly. He could change everything that drives the market at will. The number of "random" pirate attacks, how large the swarm is, the cost of missiles and fuel, repairs and insurance along with things you havent even thought of before.
What is to stop a similar but not quite so burdensome set of costs that an occaisional $10 here or there wont help? He wont call them loot boxes but supply boxes. You can fly annoying time consuming grindy missions or just buy his supplies for cash.
The only stupid people here are his backers who blindly throw money at him as if it was flowers at the feet of the Messiah. Robbers investors plan on getting return on investment asap. I wouldnt be surprised to see robbers become a figurehead whose sole purpose is to be the face of the company and to raise cash.
Post by: jwh1701 on December 26, 2018, 08:15:36 AM
Here is where they will make their money.
They will follow in EA's and Bethesda's path and monetize the shit out of it. Yes, Even Squadron 42. As you said they sold it to mosxt of the limited market for that style game. It's a sort of captive audience just as Star citizen is. You have to know that Robbers had plans to monetize Star Citizen shamelessly. He could change everything that drives the market at will. The number of "random" pirate attacks, how large the swarm is, the cost of missiles and fuel, repairs and insurance along with things you havent even thought of before.
What is to stop a similar but not quite so burdensome set of costs that an occaisional $10 here or there wont help? He wont call them loot boxes but supply boxes. You can fly annoying time consuming grindy missions or just buy his supplies for cash.
The only stupid people here are his backers who blindly throw money at him as if it was flowers at the feet of the Messiah. Robbers investors plan on getting return on investment asap. I wouldnt be surprised to see robbers become a figurehead whose sole purpose is to be the face of the company and to raise cash.
I could definitely see that happening if they can get a product out the door. F76 has been a terrible failure with bethasada ripping off customers with false advertising on the helmet and rum. Even after all the disasters since the launch they are talking about loot boxes.
Post by: Bubba on December 26, 2018, 01:56:49 PM
One question the SC fans consistently fail to ask each other is "what do you expect to get from this?" And yet they write lengthy bits of fiction about what their SC life will be like, replete with impossible game mechanics.
What do we know about these investors and their expectations. Well, Chris has made it clear that they're not passionate about Space Sims, so they're not angel investors. The opportunity they see is one of cutting out the big labels via crowdfunding.
In other words, they see a pitchman who's raised 200M, and figure that, if he can deliver on this, he can probably treatise 2 Billion. So they give him the cash to "finish the game." What happens when that's not enough?
Post by: StanTheMan on December 26, 2018, 08:46:27 PM
So they give him the cash to "finish the game." What happens when that's not enough?
I think Derek is saying they would use the losses to offset tax liabilities ...in other words they wont lose any $, CRoberts and his mates will bugger off and the Backers will be left with our laughter ringing in their ears.
Post by: dsmart on December 27, 2018, 04:34:36 AM
Quote
Wayshuba posted:
Sure, this will be a bit long but I will do my best to keep it as concise as possible.
While the investors have only 10% of the company that does not mean they are only entitled to 10% of the money in a sale. It is highly unlikely, with the amount of money involved that they took a straight 10% common share allocation. While the exact terms of the CIG deal are unknown, we can base it on what are usual terms for PE investors in a deal like this and those would be a preferred position with a 1x-1.5x liquidation preference. For sake of this example, I will use a preferred 1x liquidation terms. Keep in mind when it comes to private equity (PE) profit means absolutely nothing.
PE investors care about two things when you take their money – what is the most likely return and what is the exit strategy (i.e., the point where they get there money). That means two things – either selling the company or going public.
What this means is that if CR sells the company preferred investors are entitled to money before anyone else and a 1x liquidation term means they get their money back first.
So if CR were to sell the company for $150 million to a large publisher, the investors would first be entitled to $46m of it (1x liquidation), then they would get 10% of the remainder – so $10.4m – before anyone else does. If there is debt on the company, it would be paid AFTER the preferred investor gets their money out of CRs proceeds. This means the investors would get $56.4m on the sale. CR also mentioned he owned 75% of the company, so he would walk away with $78m in his own pocket.
Based on the roadmap and financials, CIG is burning $12m/quarter and this amount basically means the investment gives them a one year runway. The roadmap has made it clear they will not have a final product for sale until sometime, at best, in Q3 or Q4 of 2020. Which means they cannot have a revenue stream until that time. The goodwill of backers is NOT a revenue stream. Furthermore, CR must see that that source is starting to decline otherwise he never would have went for outside PE.
So, let’s say SQ42 finally does release in Q3 2020. How much revenue does anyone really think they are going to make? Most of that product is owed to backers as debt (i.e., has already been paid for) so now it is a matter of how many you will sell to non-backers. How many copies does one realistically think they will sell of SQ42? Maybe 1m-2m more? So maybe another $75m-$100m. But what if the backers represent 90% of the buyers and you release to only another $20m in sales. That would smash the value of the company.
This is why right now in 2019 CR will get the highest value for the company – before releasing a product – and from a business perspective why it is best to sell the company to a large publisher. If he does, his investors make a return, he becomes uber-wealthy, and a big publisher with deep pockets then has the responsibility to deliver to backers. If he releases and it bombs, all of that goes away. From CRs perspective, it is financially smarter to unload this turkey BEFORE releasing a product.
Hope that clears things up
Quote
Derek Smart posted:
Also anyone who knows anything about investment, will notice that this valuation is meaningless because these awful financials basically means these investors probably used Liquidation Preference & Convertible Notes conditions in their purchase agreement. In fact, it’s the only thing that makes sense for them to have given up $46M to someone who, after six years, couldn’t build a single game with $211M in free money.
Quote
Wayshuba posted:
I see the exact same play he does (though I wouldn’t push for convertibles, but rather an up on the liquidation preference with a straight preferred position).
The financial upside to CR at this point is to sell the company. This investment gives him the runway time to do that. CR is, and always has been, about the money. Don’t fool yourself as it is his long history. If releasing the final product could make him more money he would take that route. But his best play here, at this point, is to sell the company.
Quote
Derek Smart posted:
With investors (NOTE: We have no insight about the US side of things) now having so much money in the project, and with an installed $46M babysitter, we’re now entering a new dawn which I firmly believe signals not only the end of this farce, but also lawsuits abound. The difference this time is that there’s no EA or Microsoft who have the capacity to kick Chris out, rebuild etc. Instead, with someone like Dan who has extensive knowledge and experience in the industry, once this fails – as I still fully expect that it will – he’s just going to sell everything and have his clients take what they can from the proceeds, while writing off their losses as a tax incentive.
Quote
Wayshuba posted:
PE Investors invest to make a return on their investment. They could care less if you a making a pet rock or have the cure for cancer. They only care about a return.
That being said, where is the play here to make them that return? Simple.
They most likely came in at a Preferred Position and with a 1x to 1.5x liquidation preference. Any other way wouldn’t make sense.
CR didn’t go to the publishers because they are the target for the next move.
Now, let’s say CR sells his company to Activision, EA or Ubisoft for $250m. Pocket change to them. The outside investors, with a $46m 1x liquidation would get roughly $66m of that (not a bad return for probably less than 12 months investment). Then any remaining shareholders (most likely just CR and his wife) would get the remainder (so CR walks away with over $180m).
Then you now have one of the big publishers with the burden of delivering the final product – ala Digital Anvil.
And backers will eventually get their product as a result (except is will be drastically less than expected) and CR is off the hook for it and walks away a very rich man.
Well played on his part.
Post by: N0mad on December 27, 2018, 06:20:08 AM
Thing is, why take the Private Equity investment before going to the publishers to try and sell CIG? I can only imagine that it's because CR has already tried and failed to offload the company onto a publisher. So presumably that's what Dan Offner is there for - to try and get the company into a state where a publisher would be willing to buy it. The $46m investment is to give him time to work his magic. Just a theory.
Post by: Bubba on December 27, 2018, 09:24:03 AM
I still don't see it happening.
Post by: StanTheMan on December 27, 2018, 12:48:22 PM
Why would a games developer buy it off Chris if it is a lemon ?
Post by: DemonInvestor on December 27, 2018, 12:55:33 PM
@Derek aren't Publishers themselves looking at such projects as venture capital and therefore demanding high returns - meaning at least thrice the money they put in?
Post by: dsmart on December 27, 2018, 02:18:28 PM
That's a really interesting read.
Thing is, why take the Private Equity investment before going to the publishers to try and sell CIG?
Didn't you not notice that they barely had $14M in the bank end of 2017? Obviously they need cash pretty darn quickly.
Post by: dsmart on December 27, 2018, 02:20:40 PM
The "1-year runway" is to get the project in a position where someone would want to buy it. The thing is, as Derek implies, there's not gonna be some big industry player wanting to buy a game built on the crowdfunding premise that the big labels won't support a cool space game: even if the damn thing worked, all a big label would get would be grief for ruining the vision of an already-blind man. CR's best hope is someone like Amazon, with tons of cash, an interest in getting into the market, and having a proprietary platform involved, so they can't see how broken things really are.
I still don't see it happening.
I can't imagine any mainstream publisher getting involved in a company that's already pre-sold over half their "on paper" valuation. Why would they? And what would be in it for them when they know they have to deliver product that's already paid for, and money croberts and his minions already got and blew through?
That's why they went to dark money; then got someone like Dan to babysit it.
Post by: dsmart on December 27, 2018, 02:22:01 PM
@Derek aren't Publishers themselves looking at such projects as venture capital and therefore demanding high returns - meaning at least thrice the money they put in?
No. Publishers don't operate or think like investors. That's why some have investors for that.
Post by: Greggy_D on December 27, 2018, 04:41:59 PM
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 27, 2018, 06:16:21 PM
I can't imagine any mainstream publisher getting involved in a company that's already pre-sold over half their "on paper" valuation. Why would they? And what would be in it for them when they know they have to deliver product that's already paid for, and money croberts and his minions already got and blew through?
That's why they went to dark money; then got someone like Dan to babysit it.
The investors must be expecting for it to be sold or Squander 42 to be a big success though, why else would they invest 46 mil in this shit show?
As has been put forward before, is the new focus on S42 to get the company so it looks like they might release some sort of game some time soonTM or are they actually expecting the game to be released and get their return then? Having that Dan guy on board seems to point to the fact that they want to sell the company, given his involvement with Oculus.... Good luck with that. But yeah, good luck with releasing anything with Roberts at the helm either.
But then again if Roberts can convince whales to part with thousands of dollars for jpegs, maybe he can convince billionaires to part with 46 million on an outside shot at breaking into the games industry, all bets are off with this madness.
Except the bet that S42/SC will be finished.. or any good, I'd put good money on that.
Post by: dsmart on December 28, 2018, 05:10:17 AM
The investors must be expecting for it to be sold or Squander 42 to be a big success though, why else would they invest 46 mil in this shit show?
Why do people put money into scams, failed investments etc? Investors see some sort of opportunity to make money. Clearly, after looking at their books and seeing that they're not profitable, Chris and his cronies obviously sold them on the millions they claim they are going to make with SQ42.
Quote
Having that Dan guy on board seems to point to the fact that they want to sell the company, given his involvement with Oculus....
Dan represents the investors, not CIG. So he obviously sees that worse case scenario, his clients could make some money if it succeeds, or lose if it doesn't. Investors do that.
The most hilarious thing to me is that Chris had over $200M in free money, and couldn't finish a SINGLE game; yet people seriously believe he's actually going to do so in another 18 months just because he now has a $46M buffer on top of whatever it is they are making.
Whether or not they release SQ42 Beta in 2020 is largely irrelevant. The issue is that better AAA games flamed out immediately on release, but he thinks that SQ42 is going to be this huge game that's totally going to add millions of more Dollars. I just don't see it. Even if SQ42 automagically sold 1 million units over time, it's still not going to be profitable. Aside from the fact that very few games sell more than 500K units - ever. And once EP1 fails, it's basically going to kill EP2 and EP3.
This is why I keep laughing at those fools who believe that the $46M is totally for marketing. They are operating at a loss each month, yet they claim to be looking to hire more people. So where exactly is that money coming from?
Post by: Slapmeandcallmegurl on December 28, 2018, 05:45:47 AM
They've still got millions of dollars, especially after the latest rounds of sales, on hand, but now have a marketing budget as well. Good work.
Just need the game now...
Edit: How could I forget Ms Gardiner in that list as well. Sorry. What a cast!
Post by: dsmart on December 28, 2018, 06:07:49 AM
From what we've seen of Star Citizen, there is absolutely nothing that says SQ42, built with the same tech, assets etc, will be good or bad. And a cast of big names isn't going to change that.
In 18 months if they make Beta, we'll see if they're going to release it as early access or just do internal Evocati testing until the final release. Whatever they do, the minute it gets any form of release, it will live or die right there.
Post by: Slapmeandcallmegurl on December 28, 2018, 06:20:34 AM
Whether the game is any good or not I have no idea but whether the game will sell enough to provide some meaningful finance, I think yes. Like I said, splash those names with a few fancy looking explosions and a battle against an Idris or something and you'll rustle up enough interest.
One thing the game will probably do very well is visuals and set pieces that look amazing. Easy to make an attractive advert or two with cryengine...ermmm, lumberyard. It's worked before after all with the Kickstarter video.
But yes I am a gamer, even played TF2 competitively for years. Playing a medic who main calls the plays for his team in leagues and cups and stuff was great fun.
Post by: dsmart on December 28, 2018, 07:59:06 AM
The biggest issue is that most backers who would be interested in SQ42, are already entitled to it via pre-orders. That's a massive problem right off the bat. So to make any kind of decent money, they have to market it to a whole new set of gamers who would be remotely interested in a single player on-rails space combat game. They're going to be targeting gamers who would be remotely interested in Rebel Galaxy Outlaw and X4 Foundations which are so much more than what SQ42 is likely to offer. In fact, X4 Foundations, like my own UCCE game, has less than 200K units on Steam according to SteamSpy (X4 (http://steamspy.com/app/392160), UCCE (http://steamspy.com/app/345580)). Elite Dangerous, which is more on par with Star Citizen, has over 1M owners (http://steamspy.com/app/359320) on Steam.
There is no way that I can see SQ42 making any kind of dent for their finances to recover. And even with talk of a console version, it is still going to be an uphill battle because space combat games simply aren't that popular. It's why Star Citizen became a runaway funding success due to this mindset that 'nobody else is going to do this". And then croberts squandered that goodwill and has basically destroyed the project.
Post by: Slapmeandcallmegurl on December 28, 2018, 08:18:06 AM
They may have saturated the market but I don't believe it's sold every copy it can. I see plenty of posts around suggesting a lot of people are waiting on a game to be finished before handing over cash as well.
Never underestimate the Powah of Celebrity! There are many an idiot drawn to a famous face or name and compelled to spend money.
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 28, 2018, 04:33:14 PM
That's what I'm talking about. Fans of Oldman, Anderson, Hamil, Davies, Strong, Gardiner...et al, may well be tempted into a fun sci-fi game if they see it advertised. The cast may...I stress the word 'may', bring in a different audience.
They may have saturated the market but I don't believe it's sold every copy it can. I see plenty of posts around suggesting a lot of people are waiting on a game to be finished before handing over cash as well.
Never underestimate the Powah of Celebrity! There are many an idiot drawn to a famous face or name and compelled to spend money.
Only if the game is good, otherwise SC's terrible reputation outside the bubble will continue and they will not sell anywhere near the copies they need to. Even if the game is good they still may not sell enough copies.
It is not looking like the game is going to be any good, not by 2020 especially.
Post by: krylite on December 28, 2018, 10:10:01 PM
Post by: krylite on December 28, 2018, 10:35:01 PM
They're going to be targeting gamers who would be remotely interested in Rebel Galaxy Outlaw and X4 Foundations which are so much more than what SQ42 is likely to offer. In fact, X4 Foundations, like my own UCCE game, has less than 200K units on Steam according to SteamSpy (X4 (http://steamspy.com/app/392160), UCCE (http://steamspy.com/app/345580)). Elite Dangerous, which is more on par with Star Citizen, has over 1M owners (http://steamspy.com/app/359320) on Steam.
It's why Star Citizen became a runaway funding success due to this mindset that 'nobody else is going to do this". And then croberts squandered that goodwill and has basically destroyed the project.
Great points about how the other current genre games are doing. X4, even NMS has already effectively eclipsed or pre-empted touted features of the vapor marketed expectations that CIG and CR tossed around like confetti year after year. It's lol funny to see how they keep claiming innovation when X4, NMS and Elite (on various other fronts) has already been there done that as released games as the years pass by. This holiday season saw the X4 cycle already deflate so how would a SQ42 be even approaching X4's success in its sorry state. My 2c guess is the investor somehow in delusion came to believe SQ42 or whatever CIG doles out ,if ever, can approach a buying spike under a bunch of manipulated false hype and expectations (like NMS' infamous release) which seem unlikely as you've said CR has already squandered years of goodwill and burned millions. Maybe CIG would even attempt to "offer" the SC fooledback whales and shillizens some p2w or more SC vapor "incentives" to repay(!) for SQ42 again. Add to that all the shifty cig shilling in social media and some boneheaded articles like the recent Newsweek SC "report" farce.
Post by: DemonInvestor on December 29, 2018, 11:10:55 AM
That's what I'm talking about. Fans of Oldman, Anderson, Hamil, Davies, Strong, Gardiner...et al, may well be tempted into a fun sci-fi game if they see it advertised. The cast may...I stress the word 'may', bring in a different audience.
They may have saturated the market but I don't believe it's sold every copy it can. I see plenty of posts around suggesting a lot of people are waiting on a game to be finished before handing over cash as well.
Never underestimate the Powah of Celebrity! There are many an idiot drawn to a famous face or name and compelled to spend money.
You're right... they best should buy the E.T. rights, i heard they're up for grabbing and you surely can't fail with celebrity and an well established franchise!
Maybe he should also start getting movie producers involved, i heard that really got tons of player playing Doom or Hitman. :wink:
Or the be a bit less sarcastic, names aren't everything. And while i think there are people out there who would buy SQ42 if it's a great game, they've been critical of the whole Multiplayer aspect and chose to wait for sometime after release. Because failing kickstarters and failing old developers isn't new anylonger and bad movie/game adaptations have been mostly the norm, rather than being special cases.
Post by: dsmart on December 31, 2018, 04:12:10 AM
I am still baffled as to why any investor would put money into this project. All I think can think of is that it probably has something to do with perhaps a movie. Also, as per the other discussion (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg11237#msg11237) about that aspect, this investor probably has protections guaranteeing that he gets his money back out in some fashion. The fact that they were touting this money as being for SQ42, is a huge Red flag that the investment relies heavily on it's sales performance.
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 31, 2018, 06:31:54 AM
At this point, I don't think it matters what state SQ42 will be released in, or even if it turned out good. What matters is that they are now just doing the bare minimum in order to deliver on the main things from the kickstarter. Aside from the financial brochure (which surprised me tbh) which was a key point, SQ42 represents the final aspect. Remember, as I have been saying for years now, it doesn't what state or shape the final results are in because they are legally protected by the guarantee of performance condition. So they could implement something, even if it doesn't work as expected. The bottom line is that the creators and execs got rich based on lies. The only good part is that they provided jobs for a large number of people over the years.
I am still baffled as to why any investor would put money into this project. All I think can think of is that it probably has something to do with perhaps a movie. Also, as per the other discussion (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg11237#msg11237) about that aspect, this investor probably has protections guaranteeing that he gets his money back out in some fashion. The fact that they were touting this money as being for SQ42, is a huge Red flag that the investment relies heavily on it's sales performance.
Lol, that would really be Freelancer and the Wing Commander movie all over again, but no Microsoft to finish it.
Post by: dsmart on December 23, 2019, 11:47:46 AM
https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cloud-imperium-financials-for-2018
Post by: Slapmeandcallmegurl on December 23, 2019, 11:50:33 AM
CIG have released the 2018 financials on holiday eve. I am not going to even bother with an analysis (as I did last year (http://dereksmart.com/2018/12/star-citizen-a-new-dawn/) for 2012-2017) because the numbers speak for themselves. No way they can get this project 'done' (lmao) without continuing to raise money.
https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cloud-imperium-financials-for-2018
And there's no way they aren't going to continue raising money. Record year, remember?
Post by: dsmart on December 23, 2019, 11:54:31 AM
And there's no way they aren't going to continue raising money. Record year, remember?
Record year, yet they're still about $7m loss for 2018. Go figure. :emot-allears:
Post by: dsmart on December 23, 2019, 12:45:17 PM
CIG have released the 2018 financials on holiday eve. I am not going to even bother with an analysis (as I did last year (http://dereksmart.com/2018/12/star-citizen-a-new-dawn/) for 2012-2017) because the numbers speak for themselves. No way they can get this project 'done' (lmao) without continuing to raise money.
https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cloud-imperium-financials-for-2018
Short analysis (thread)
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1208540162256523264
Post by: dsmart on April 23, 2020, 11:50:41 AM
Well she's been out at CIG since last year; but they've been keeping that under wraps too.
As the saying goes, backers will never know.
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on April 23, 2020, 05:03:07 PM
Hey remember back in 2015 when I wrote that Sandi and Chris were married, and they they were hiding it and pretending? Then it became public.
Well she's been out at CIG since last year; but they've been keeping that under wraps too.
As the saying goes, backers will never know.
Someone posted a thing on the refunds sub about Chris not wearing his wedding ring, seems like they were on to something. I guess the director of marketing is no longer, involved. Chris had better take more funds out for a second mansion.
Post by: MadAmishman on May 26, 2020, 06:46:25 AM
Post by: dsmart on May 26, 2020, 08:16:09 AM
Post by: jwh1701 on May 26, 2020, 10:19:18 AM
https://twitter.com/SandiGardiner
Post by: dsmart on August 31, 2020, 02:21:43 PM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1300543859307544580?s=20
Post by: dsmart on September 01, 2020, 08:08:08 AM
FIVE ALARM FIRE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1300543859307544580?s=20
When you have to explain common sense to fanboys...
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1300756521995960320
Post by: wiser3754 on September 01, 2020, 01:51:09 PM
When you have to explain common sense to fanboys...
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1300756521995960320
Not to mention that server side object container streaming was implemented in an ALPHA state backnin December. How far along are we? Going nowhere? Good job CIG.
Post by: jwh1701 on September 02, 2020, 10:05:43 AM
FIVE ALARM FIRE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1300543859307544580?s=20
Lots of good information.
Post by: dsmart on December 29, 2020, 12:08:41 PM
It’s now 5.5 yrs since I wrote that July 2015 blog saying this was never going to be a thing – ever. Going into 2021, that’s a total of 10 years in dev.
Who remembers back in 2018 after they sold 10% of the company and CR said SQ42 was totally going into Beta in Q1/20? Sources said it was all lies; and I even wrote a blog saying specifically that (http://dereksmart.com/2018/12/star-citizen-a-new-dawn/).
As for the 2019 financials? Well, take a look (https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cloud-imperium-financials-for-2019).
Post by: Motto on December 29, 2020, 12:20:13 PM
Post by: concern on December 30, 2020, 12:54:37 AM
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on December 30, 2020, 02:36:11 AM
It's all getting a bit stale, isn't it. Everyone has moved on.
Yeah most have, there are the die hards who are determined to go down with the ship, and a steady stream of new rubes getting hooked in. They are in a war of attrition now trying to keep new whales coming in to cover the loss of the old ones giving up.
CIG will expand to spend whatever money comes in though so it will always be a struggle.
Post by: dsmart on January 05, 2021, 12:52:06 PM
It's all getting a bit stale, isn't it. Everyone has moved on.
Yup, pretty much. It's only good for a sneer every now and then.
Post by: jwh1701 on January 18, 2021, 10:16:02 PM
It's all getting a bit stale, isn't it. Everyone has moved on.
Very true, they continue to keep the faithful going with surprisingly so very little. They just posted a meme laughing and ships bouncing in the hangars as cool but are unable to admit the most basic issues.
Post by: dsmart on January 21, 2021, 12:04:23 PM
Very true, they continue to keep the faithful going with surprisingly so very little. They just posted a meme laughing and ships bouncing in the hangars as cool but are unable to admit the most basic issues.
It's what they've always done - and it works. So why change? They know they have saps for backers.
Post by: jwh1701 on January 21, 2021, 02:57:12 PM
It's what they've always done - and it works. So why change? They know they have saps for backers.
Very true but I keep thinking the delays lack of content would have at some point manifested into larger backlash. I should re-imagine some scenes in Idiocracy with startcitizen plashed everywhere in my editor.
Post by: Judge_dolly_OG on March 18, 2021, 12:10:33 PM
https://www.firesprite.com/news/2021/03/cloud-imperium-games-and-firesprite-unveil-development-partnership-for-star-citizen-multiplayer-mode/
A contractor has been brought in to work on ToW, presumably as they have a chance of releasing something when at arms length from CR and the development hell of the CIG studios. Interesting when ToW was originally sold to the backers as something that would not cost a lot of money, and would not take a lot of development resource.
Quote
This combined arms mode will continue to see iteration and development to help progress Star Citizen’s and Squadron 42’s combat, and future tests will expand beyond the closed Evocati group to eventually include players in the Public Test Universe.
So no mention of dates, but it could be another Ilfonic episode :laugh: It shows that they are moving more work away from the incompetent CIG to other companies that have a better chance of delivering. But it also suggests that their expenditure is rising at least in line with their income to do this.
Post by: jwh1701 on March 18, 2021, 08:57:29 PM
Found this from the refunds sub:
https://www.firesprite.com/news/2021/03/cloud-imperium-games-and-firesprite-unveil-development-partnership-for-star-citizen-multiplayer-mode/
When I saw that earlier today I just laughed thinking about the KS goals.
Post by: Aya Reiko on March 18, 2021, 11:47:07 PM
Found this from the refunds sub:A game mode being made by a dev with virtually no experience in the genre it's in. And the closest thing they have done is something virtually nobody has heard of, much less touched. This is going to end well...
https://www.firesprite.com/news/2021/03/cloud-imperium-games-and-firesprite-unveil-development-partnership-for-star-citizen-multiplayer-mode/
A contractor has been brought in to work on ToW, presumably as they have a chance of releasing something when at arms length from CR and the development hell of the CIG studios. Interesting when ToW was originally sold to the backers as something that would not cost a lot of money, and would not take a lot of development resource.
So no mention of dates, but it could be another Ilfonic episode :laugh: It shows that they are moving more work away from the incompetent CIG to other companies that have a better chance of delivering. But it also suggests that their expenditure is rising at least in line with their income to do this.
Post by: dsmart on March 19, 2021, 10:30:43 AM
ps: Yeah, it's going to be a disaster
Post by: dsmart on March 19, 2021, 01:31:58 PM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1373002261392146434?s=20
Meanwhile over there
(https://i.imgur.com/rK0R3TC.png)
Post by: DemonInvestor on March 20, 2021, 04:16:45 AM
But i'm a jaded asshole in such regards who only asks who wins more by that - a small studio with their biggest accomplishment being former Psygnosis devs, or the big studio without anything under their belt who solely survive on make believe...
Post by: N0mad on March 22, 2021, 12:50:45 PM
- FireSprite have expertise / technology which CIG can benefit from to get ToW done
- CIG want ToW released as a separate game - doing so at arms length via FireSprite avoids some of the negative associations with SC and gives them an excuse for shafting backers
- CIG are too incompetent to make it work so they need help from devs who actually know what they're doing
Post by: dsmart on March 29, 2021, 11:05:51 AM