Support NeoGAF

[Outrun]

I'm sorry, but you just cannot teach me about posting standard when your posts look like this:
" I don't keep up with all the revisionist bullshit implied either by CIG "
" The game or rather the broken ass tech demos"
"was characterized by janky ass vehicle movement, janky ass character movement, sub-par shooting gameplay compared "
"With a 125$ Mio. project that has allegedly been five years into development, this is a downright disgraceful showing."
" And outside of the realm of fappable bullshots and off hands tech demos, everything they have demonstrated, from the flight model, movement, animation etc. (that hasn't gotten any noticeably less janky and broken since Arena Commander in 2014), to their handling of deadlines, breaking of promises and dancing around being honest about the reasons for continuously breaking self imposed ETAs or being forthcoming with new ETAs speaks volumes that they're not able in any form to deliver on their promises of the BDSSE."
And this whole post: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=219829310&postcount=310
(thats only 7 pages of this thread)

I know that we have at least 4 CIG employees on GAF and i feel really sorry for them that they have to read posts like yours. They probably feel like shit reading this thread.

----


Thats a new low? Have you not read this thread? And his post was so constructive...

I dont if you know that, but Star Citizen threads are notoriously spammed by one drive posters, mostly by console warriors, but not exclusively, that just shit on the project or just call it scam, or call names developers.
Its getting out hands every time and i'm sorry, but i got quite sensitive regarding this.
Its so disrespectful for CIG employees.

You cant fight CIG's battles for them. I am pretty certain that Chris Roberts is the focal point for the claims of mismanagement and incompetence. Don't worry about CIG employees. But, if any one of these employees would like to provide a BS-free honest update on the status of SQ42, that would be splendid. No one is blaming the foot soldier. It is the high command that is responsible for this mess.

 

[Chipopo]

I know that we have at least 4 CIG employees on GAF and i feel really sorry for them that they have to read posts like yours. They probably feel like shit reading this thread.

Receiving criticism is part of the trade-off for working on any high-profile project, and especially so when your company uses ethically dubious practices to raise funds. I'm sure that as working professionals they can cope with this and understand that it isn't personal.

 

[Jackpot]

Thats a new low? Have you not read this thread? And his post was so constructive...

I dont if you know that, but Star Citizen threads are notoriously spammed by one drive posters, mostly by console warriors, but not exclusively, that just shit on the project or just call it scam, or call names developers.
Its getting out hands every time and i'm sorry, but i got quite sensitive regarding this.
Its so disrespectful for CIG employees.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Burny]

I'm sorry, but you just cannot teach me about posting standard when your posts look like this:

"But, but, he's much worse than I!" Oh, yes, one can. If I'm being an arse, does that make direct personal trolls at other posters you do any better? Nope, it doesn't.

As for "posting like this", let's take the points, one by one:

• [ref] "I don't keep up with all the revisionist bullshit implied either by CIG" - Yep, I really can't. But revisionist bullshit it is, like it or not. [1][2]
• [ref]"The game or rather the broken ass tech demos" - I suspect it's the "broken ass" you take issue with. Well, even the scripting in their recent demo broke live on stage. During their gamescom guest streams character animations broke and I seem to remember seeing someone falling through a floor (might've been in another context of Star Citizen footage though). That's already nearly polished compared to when I tried to play the Alpha last time with a colleage around 2.1 or 2.2.
• [ref] "was characterized by janky ass vehicle movement, janky ass character movement, sub-par shooting gameplay compared " - To? About all other high profile shooters in the last decade? Yes, yes, very much. Whenever inside a vehicle, the character half glitches half walks through the environment, the hover bike hobbles around like a bunny, there's its fair share of texture flickering and the enemies "AI" lets them run in a straight line and shoot at best.
• [ref]"With a 125$ Mio. project that has allegedly been five years into development, this is a downright disgraceful showing." - Oh yes, it is when you ask me. Any other projects with that much time and funding that haven't managed to produce a second trailer, while allegedly being close to being shown? While coming out with such err... impressive demos as described above?
• [ref]"And outside of the realm of fappable bullshots and off hands tech demos, everything they have demonstrated, from the flight model, movement, animation etc. (that hasn't gotten any noticeably less janky and broken since Arena Commander in 2014), to their handling of deadlines, breaking of promises and dancing around being honest about the reasons for continuously breaking self imposed ETAs or being forthcoming with new ETAs speaks volumes that they're not able in any form to deliver on their promises of the BDSSE." - Yep, that's the impression I'm getting. Your refutation is? More of "they wanted to give a preview of what the game would be like when entirely finished" we've been seeing by people echoing what CIG said?
• And this whole post: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=219829310&postcount=310
  (thats only 7 pages of this thread) - What about it exactly?

I know that we have at least 4 CIG employees on GAF and i feel really sorry for them that they have to read posts like yours. They probably feel like shit reading this thread.

I would feel like shit, too, if the project that I'm pouring passion and lifetime into looked from the outside like being stuck in development hell and the company's head buffoon was doing his best to reinforce the impression by sailing through vast majority of deadlines he's given, making new ones up as he goes along as well as blowing up scope when he feels like it. In that sense, yes I feel very sorry for them, too. I hope it hasn't escaped you that I'm not blaming them for appearing to run this initially promising project into a wall, but the head honchos?

If they can with absolute honesty say that everything is peachy and I'm completely off the mark with my impressions, they're free to chime in.

 

[joecanada]

Receiving criticism is part of the trade-off for working on any high-profile project, and especially so when your company uses ethically dubious practices to raise funds. I'm sure that as working professionals they can cope with this and understand that it isn't personal.

yeah, I want the game to be successful and I'm not trying to be harsh, especially to employees who have no control over these things but crowdfunding is not really a business model (well it is a model but not the traditional one). it's more like a charitable loan of sorts. and you are going to be scrutinized for everything you spend money on and do when you work with other peoples money. everytime.

Solution, use your own money or the banks or a publisher and deal with their scrutiny instead. Because their scrutiny is a lot more savage than this, and they will take you to the cleaners on equity as well.

 

[Outrun]

yeah, I want the game to be successful and I'm not trying to be harsh, especially to employees who have no control over these things but crowdfunding is not really a business model (well it is a model but not the traditional one). it's more like a charitable loan of sorts. and you are going to be scrutinized for everything you spend money on and do when you work with other peoples money. everytime.

Solution, use your own money or the banks or a publisher and deal with their scrutiny instead. Because their scrutiny is a lot more savage than this, and they will take you to the cleaners on equity as well.

Yep, perhaps an external audit is necessary to ascertain the progress of this endeavour. I would trust KPMG over an answer of The Chairman.

When you are dealing with 120 million USD, you are going to have to be accountable to some entity.

I think an external audit would do wonders to dispel any negative myths that is going on here.

If all is going well, CIG has nothing to worry about.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In many ways, the development of this game is suffering from the complete lack of management, focus, and overall vision that Duke Nukem Forever did.

 

[joecanada]

Yep, perhaps an external audit is necessary to ascertain the progress of this endeavour. I would trust KPMG over an answer of The Chairman.

When you are dealing with 120 million USD, you are going to have to be accountable to some entity.

I think an external audit would do wonders to dispel any negative myths that is going on here.

If all is going well, CIG has nothing to worry about.

well lets not get ahead of ourselves, I didn't say that they should be audited, I suspect some business people prefer kickstarter for that very reason, they don't really have to answer to anyone technically. and I never recommend kickstarter because to me its a ridiculous notion that you would just give someone money when there are probably equally exciting businesses out there who would give you equity stake in return (see project cars as an alternative model for example). but if you view it more as a "pre-order" as in here you go here's my money build me a great game then there will still be many expectations on that game , though you may not be able to refund it but that's the risk you take.

but I am saying that the price for that money you are given is you are going to be scrutinized by potentially every person who gave you money also including the perks of having an automatic pr machine and vocal critics. so you may as well just expect it and roll with it.

Like what is the actual chance that all the crowdfunders of this game will be happy at the end? its a monumental task.

 

[Burny]

I think an external audit would do wonders to dispel any negative myths that is going on here.

Why all the hassle? They could've "just" kept closer to their previous terms of service (2013/09/21) rather than rewriting or dropping passages that don't suit them anymore:

• Your payment is a deposit to be used for a) the production and delivery cost for the pledge items (“Pledge Item Cost”), and (b) the development and production cost of the Game, including the Website cost, , and RSI’s corporate expenses associated with the foregoing (the “Game Cost”).
• The deposit shall be earned by RSI and become non-refundable to the extent that it is used for the Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost, with your deposit being applied as follows: first to the Pledge Item Cost, and then to the Game Cost in a percentage equal to the total applied Game Cost in relation to the total deposits of all contributors remaining after the Pledge Item Cost.
• RSI agrees to use its good faith business efforts to deliver to you the pledge items and the Game on or before the estimated delivery date. However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a promise by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time. Accordingly, you agree that any unearned portion of the deposit shall not be refundable until and unless RSI has failed to deliver the pledge items and/or the Game to you within 12 months after the estimated delivery date.
• For the avoidance of doubt, in consideration of RSI’s good faith efforts to develop, produce, and deliver the Game with the funds raised, you agree that any deposit amounts applied against the Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost as described above shall be non-refundable regardless of whether or not RSI is able to complete and deliver the Game and/or the pledge items. In the unlikely event that RSI is not able to deliver the Game and/or the pledge items, RSI agrees to post an audited cost accounting on its website to fully explain the use of the deposits for the Game Cost and the Pledge Item Cost. In consideration of the promises by RSI hereunder, you agree to irrevocably waive any claim for refund of any deposit amount that has been used for the Game Cost and Pledge Item Cost in accordance with the above.

This was in 2013, so the estimated delivery date per Roberts was 2014.

There's lots of valid criticism to be made for the project, but it's not like Chris came at Derek out of nowhere. This page I linked earlier has the info people gathered to support the connection to the Oct 1 article - link.

You have a point and the Escapist certainly gave Smart a platform with their first article. As did about the rest of game media. What seemed to me the trigger back then, was the article where they allegedly quote ex-devs (it says October 6th on it, but that seems to be the edit. Earliest comments are from October 1st, so that aligns with the dates you post). That didn't have anything about Derek Smart in it, but a number accusations, against which Roberts argues with his letter, while raging at Smart on the CIG page, turning Smart into Star Citizens nemesis himself. Apart from not being the most classy of reactions - responding to alleged diffamation with a whole lot of personal diffamation in return, it's also looking more and more likely that comments along the lines of "A lot of people would be like "Where's the game? When is this going to turn into a game?" CS3 added. "It was all about making pretty spaceships and brochures and commercials and hiring big name Hollywood actors to do voice-overs for the commercials. We were never working on a game." are not so far from the truth as Roberts would have us believe. As much as that sounds like a disgruntled ex-employee, fictional or real, that looks like a more realistc explanation for a no-show after five years than feeble "we almost made it, but..." stories.

Quiet apart from Roberts himself looking like the greatest nemesis of this project.