Star Citizen General BS

[Serendipity]

 – Week A: delay critical tasks, add a few fluff tasks, do not delay overall launch prediction. Sales are usually held during these weeks.
 – Week B: close a few fluff tasks to convey an image of progress, delay the overall launch prediction for two weeks

 What you're suggesting has no basis in fact. You're just parroting Derek's malicious agenda with no evidence that's intentional deceit.
 Read the post I pasted from Will Leverett. Read the caveats from the schedule itself.

  At this point their "schedule" are pointless, it exists only to calm down backers to show some ongoing "progress"...

  In general they have huge management issues starting from top - CR is already known for NOT delivering in time and on budget (Freelancer..)..so here is high change that history will repeat itself...

1)  Pre-Alfa already shows some strange attempts to reinvent the Wheel - head bobbing lol that all the time "jumping" radar...
2)  Some ships with bad cockpit views...I guess they are not designed for humans to fly...
3) overcomplicated  ships designs for "MMO" (where you need to keep things simple to have descent performance) that game engine can not handle even in offline mode...because they are using engine that was designed for single player FPS :D     

 so best possible outcome - average game with strange design decisions and performance issues..   

Probably game will be forever in alfa until funding stops...

The schedule is the internal one if Will is telling the truth. It shows where they want to be. It's not an exact science. Accurate and something to bet on? No. Their best guess for now? I believe so.

The head bob/stabilisation work was required because of the desire to have a unified 1st and 3rd person animation set and for bullets to come from the barrel of the gun and not just the centre of the screen or characters head as in most games. It wasn't trivial but was needed. The human brain does a great job of stabilising our vision.

The engine has been significantly reworked and it performs absolutely fine in offline mode or when the server is fresh or empty. Netcode is holding it all back for now.

Best possible outcome isn't an everage game. That's daft. Of course they can make it work with time and money and seeing as they don't have a fixed budget nor time frame and backers seem willing to continue funding, who knows what they can achieve. Microsoft had a fixed budget. GIG doesn't.

[Motto]

It all doesn't matter anymore now, the game is almost over.

Chris has stated that if funding went dry this day, they'd still have enough money to finish the game SQ42 and that the revenues generated by SQ42 would enable them to complete the rest of SC. So, in building the games, money is no issue. However, the fact that they haven't build anything regarding SQ42, or are still failing at delivering something worth playable at all might, but let's not look to deep into that.

Let's assume that CIG has money issues. Recent events are a strong indication of that. The ungoing sales for cash only, the loan in the UK et cetera are clear signs of that. They spend most of the money they received in the past years on all their studios, the staff etc. yet have little finished product to show for and the new income stream isn't enough to cover the monthly expenses. So, there comes a point when the costs are higher than the money left. If you know that's coming, the best things to do are:

1. increasing the income
2. cutting down expenses

Since 1. is clearly getting exhausted, mainly because of the fact they still can't produce a decent Alpha build and keep on feeding the backers lots of BS, only 2. remains. However, telling the community that despite the fact that there still isn't a game after all those years and money spend, expenses have to be cut down by closing offices - therefore also reducing the people actually working on the game - is not a real option. It would be regarded as proof that the money is gone. After 155m having to admit to the backers that there is not enough money left to continue building on the old scale would be killing. The only way to avoid that, other than releasing a working game as promised (or full financial disclosure), is to act as if nothing is wrong. Meaning burning through the remaining money at the same speed.

So, what to do? At Gamescom 2016 Chris stated that 3.0 was nearly there. Now, a year later, 3.0 is still not there. And they are defending that by saying they almost had a working small 3.0 but decided to skip that and go for a big 3.0 with lots of extra features et cetera. Unfortunately, backers can easily point out that most if not all of those extra's were originally intented for the small 3.0 or are now even less than for the original small 3.0 release. The number of ignorant backers is getting lower, more and more are mainly fed up with being lied to. It doesn't mean they are giving up on SC yet, but the will to put in extra money (again) is drying up. Failing to be honest is getting a bigger problem for CIG than failing to deliver 3.0.

Now Gamescom 2017 is coming in three weeks. There is no 3.0 released yet, not even to the inner circle of Avocado's. Most likely reason, there isn't a 3.0 ready to be delivered. So again, a choice. Going to Gamescon without a 3.0 release. Chris would have to be a great talker to justify that after his statement from 2016. He'll probably try to deflect that with a lot of handwaving, big dreams and futuretelling and by showing beautiful R&D videoclips of things to come. Possibly with huge sandworms. They might even have a totally pre-loaded and scipted 3.0 gamerun availble for an "independent" backer to "play".  Only this time, the backers know what's coming. Been there last year, seen that last year. Yawn... So, it might spike the hype a little again, but it won't be the major revenue boost they hope for. Of course, according to their funding tracker, it will be a huge success.

The other option is putting the not-ready 3.0 out there with the Avocado's. Where it will be a major disappointment and that will leak. The frustration of waiting over a year for something that even then doesn't deliver will get the most hardcore backer over. In a way, the overhyping and overanticipating by the backers is now becoming an extra burden for CIG. There is no way to live up to those expectations.

Best scenario: succesfully feeding the hype (again) at Gamescom with lots of clips etc. to generate money. Releasing 3.0 quickly right after and hoping that a better performing 3.0x can be made available before Shitizencon in October. There another run of big stories and videoclips with the statement, see, we did release 3.0 so we're still on the slow but right track. So keep giving us money so we can complete the BDSSE.

The remaining number of totally ignorant backers will determine how long CIG can continue the current operation. My guess it won't be long now. Regardless how much everybody might want SC to succeed, it's just not going to happen.

And no, Serendipity, you don't have to rebuttal my post with arguments, quotes, statements, videolinks and what not, to show that you think there is nothing wrong with the (financial) situation of CIG, that there might or might not be a game, that delays are to be expected when building something completely new and/or of this magnitude, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We've been there, we've done that. To those here on this forum, it's obvious that Star Citizen is a disaster and that it will collapse shortly. I'll be the second (after Derek) to admit that he was wrong if we're still all here in a couple of years predicting CIG will fall over shortly. But that's no more reality than Star Citizen ever being released.

[GaryII]

The engine has been significantly reworked and it performs absolutely fine in offline mode or when the server is fresh or empty. Netcode is holding it all back for now.

 Not that great....

 https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/starcitizen-performance-cpu-scaling-in-hacked-offl

 and thats only on 720p..

[dsmart]

It's not better to wait, everyone wants the game earlier but looking at a tiny slice of what is envisioned as a barometer for the final product is short sighted at best. Let's see what 3.0 and onwards brings. Perhaps a true alpha product over pre alpha or tech demo.

But who will pay for it, who will pay the 400+ devs all the years to come

Funding continues. 3.0 release, Gamescom, citizencon and Squadron 42 will provide many more millions. They'll be ok for a while yet.

Is it a crime for a company to sell what it produces? Is anyone forced into buying? Does Chris come round my house with a gun?

 Its not a crime, but they definitely have very dishonest marketing practices like this:

– Week A: delay critical tasks, add a few fluff tasks, do not delay overall launch prediction. Sales are usually held during these weeks.
– Week B: close a few fluff tasks to convey an image of progress, delay the overall launch prediction for two weeks

 So in the end they are exploiting people who are irresponsible with their money...and I personally don't like that...             

What you're suggesting has no basis in fact. You're just parroting Derek's malicious agenda with no evidence that's intentional deceit. Read the post I pasted from Will Leverett. Read the caveats from the schedule itself.

Do you really think backers pre purchase based on estimated completion dates of individual components?

"Oh look, they've nearly completed volumetric fog, imma gonna buy a freelancer now" said no-one, ever.

Let me break down his post for you because I feel that you are having a difficult time reconciling it.

Its not a crime, but they definitely have very dishonest marketing practices like this:

Actually fraud is a crime. So are fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment etc. While violating of an agreement (the ToS) is subject to civil legal action.

If LYING to backers was perfectly OK, and not a crime, State and Fed officials won't have systematically taken legal action against various crowd-funding projects. And since those sort of investigations do take time, I am certain that many are in the works even as I type this.

Also, that's why the FTC has a wealth of resources on it's website dedicated to DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.

– Week A: delay critical tasks, add a few fluff tasks, do not delay overall launch prediction. Sales are usually held during these weeks.

This is an actual fact, backed by metrics.

The 3.0 schedule released in April and with a June 29th release aim date, was completely bogus. There is NO way that a project manager didn't know that it was off by as much as 90 DAYS.

So, the pattern is that instead of showing a longer release date, they pad it 2-3 weeks at a time. Trust me, it's the oldest trick in the book when dealing with publishers who pay on milestone deliveries.

While they had the Nox and Cyclone sales, the release aim date for 07/14 and 07/21 schedules didn't change. This despite the fact that several tasks were delayed by as much as three weeks. Then at the height of the sale, the 07/28 schedule adds another two weeks.

And in those tasks, instead of completing the important ones, they are then adding new (some of the sub-tasks) tasks, under the guise of "this will make 3.0 better". The same thing that got the game scope so bloated, and sealed its fate as an incoming disaster.

– Week B: close a few fluff tasks to convey an image of progress, delay the overall launch prediction for two weeks

And they've been doing this consistently since the first 3.0 schedule in April. And not only that, in the June-July schedules, entire tasks which were once marked completed, changed to TBD, or had no status at all. Which leads most of us devs to believe that the original status was bogus.

When I wrote a few times back in late 2016 and earlier this year that sources told me that "3.0 didn't exist", some people didn't believe me. I didn't believe it at first. So, I would like someone to explain to me how a 3.0 that was touted in Aug 2016, "shown" in Oct 2016, and "estimated" to be coming on|before Dec 19 2016, ended up now being + 8 months late, and will probably be a full 12 months before it is released to all backers.

[dsmart]

It all doesn't matter anymore now, the game is almost over.

Chris has stated that if funding went dry this day, they'd still have enough money to finish the game SQ42 and that the revenues generated by SQ42 would enable them to complete the rest of SC. So, in building the games, money is no issue. However, the fact that they haven't build anything regarding SQ42, or are still failing at delivering something worth playable at all might, but let's not look to deep into that.

Let's assume that CIG has money issues. Recent events are a strong indication of that. The ungoing sales for cash only, the loan in the UK et cetera are clear signs of that. They spend most of the money they received in the past years on all their studios, the staff etc. yet have little finished product to show for and the new income stream isn't enough to cover the monthly expenses. So, there comes a point when the costs are higher than the money left. If you know that's coming, the best things to do are:

1. increasing the income
2. cutting down expenses

Since 1. is clearly getting exhausted, mainly because of the fact they still can't produce a decent Alpha build and keep on feeding the backers lots of BS, only 2. remains. However, telling the community that despite the fact that there still isn't a game after all those years and money spend, expenses have to be cut down by closing offices - therefore also reducing the people actually working on the game - is not a real option. It would be regarded as proof that the money is gone. After 155m having to admit to the backers that there is not enough money left to continue building on the old scale would be killing. The only way to avoid that, other than releasing a working game as promised (or full financial disclosure), is to act as if nothing is wrong. Meaning burning through the remaining money at the same speed.

So, what to do? At Gamescom 2016 Chris stated that 3.0 was nearly there. Now, a year later, 3.0 is still not there. And they are defending that by saying they almost had a working small 3.0 but decided to skip that and go for a big 3.0 with lost of extra features et cetera. Unfortunately, backers can easily point out that most if not all off those extra's where originally intented for the small 3.0 or are now even less than for the original small 3.0 release. The number of ignorant backers is getting lower, more and more are mainly fed up with being lied to. It doesn't mean they are giving up on SC yet, but the will to put in extra money (again) is drying up. Failing to be honest is getting a bigger problem for CIG than failing to deliver 3.0.

Now Gamescom 2017 is coming in three weeks. There is no 3.0 released yet, not even to the inner circle of Avocado's. Most likely reason, there isn't a 3.0 ready to be delivered. So again, a choice. Going to Gamescon without a 3.0 release. Chris would have to be a great talker to justify that after his statement from 2016. He'll probably try to deflect that with a lot of handwaving, big dreams and futuretelling and by showing beautiful R&D videoclips of things to come. Possibly with huge sandworms. They might even have a totally pre-loaded and scipted 3.0 gamerun availble for a "independent" backer to "play".  Only this time, the backers know what's coming. Been there last year, seen that last year. Yawn... So, it might spike the hype a little again, but it won't be the major revenue boost they hope for. Of course, according to their funding tracker, it will be a huge success.

The other option is putting the not-ready 3.0 out there with the Avocado's. Where it will be a major disappointment and that will leak. The frustration of waiting over a year for something that even then doesn't deliver will get the most hardcore backer over. In a way, the overhyping and overanticipating by the backers is now becoming an extra burden for CIG. There is no way to live up to those expectations.

Best scenario: succesfully feeding the hype (again) at Gamescom with lots of clips etc. to generate money. Releasing 3.0 quickly right after and hoping that a better performing 3.0x can be made available before Shitizencon in October. There another run of big stories and videoclips with the statement, see, we did release 3.0 so we're still on the slow but right track. So keep giving us money so we can complete the BDSSE.

The remaining number of totally ignorant backers will determine how long CIG can continue the current operation. My guess it won't be long now. Regardless how much everybody might want SC to succeed, it's just not going to happen.

And no, Serendipity, you don't have to rebuttal my post with arguments, quotes, statements, videolinks and what not, to show that you think there is nothing wrong with the (financial) situation of CIG, that there might or might not be a game, that delays are to be expected when building something completely new and/or of this magnitude, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We've been there, we've done that. To those here on this forum, it's obvious that Star Citizen is a disaster and that it will collapse shortly. I'll be the second (after Derek) to admit that's he was wrong if we're still all here in a couple of years predicting CIG will fall over shortly. But that's no more reality than Star Citizen ever being released.

Brilliant post. I believe we have a contender for my posting crown 

I don't personally believe that they will release it to Evocati during GamesCom unless it is in a playable state that's going to amaze rather than annoy. This is because, with all the angst, and /r/StarCitizen having lifted their "No Evocati" rules, comments and opinions it WILL leak. Once that happens, depending on what those testers believe - though it is very likely that there are loyalists among them who will lie or try to downplay it as "pre-alpha", the sentiment will be a sea change. That's what I believe will be the final nail in the coffin.

This project will never make it to 4.0.

[dsmart]

The engine has been significantly reworked and it performs absolutely fine in offline mode or when the server is fresh or empty. Netcode is holding it all back for now.

You DO realize that it's an online-only game, right?

Also, no, the performance isn't "absolutely fine". Geez man, you're not even trying anymore. If anything, even the most hardcore SC loyalists know that the game is an absolute performance hog.

[dsmart]

Some backers, sensing the beginning of the end or something, have once again started trotting out the "backers voted for the increased scope bullshit", while engaging in obfuscation and revisionist history.

In fact, as I wrote here about a year ago, that notion is patently false.  The 11-03-2012 stretch goals poll, and the 07-17-2013 funding counter poll did no such thing. And even if it did, it was still up to Chris to know when to say no, or when to determine whether or not it could be done. But regardless, in Nov 2014, after raising $65M, the project scope was significantly increased, thus sealing its fate and dooming it to the failure it is now facing.

That’s the third time you’ve posted the same link to the same poll, disregarding points raised that the poll data doesn’t show any consensus or agreement in any of the options, since not even a simple majority agrees on any one option despite each participant being allowed to select 3 options. Members of the active SC community were given 3 votes each and still failed to put any of the options above 40% support, which suggests that there is no majority support from the community for any of the expansion options.

If anything, giving people 3 choices each instead of 1 should have made it easier for any one option to hit 50%, but that still didn’t happen. All this shows is that CIG polled the community and then promptly disregarded the results, opting to proceed with their own plan instead, and certainly doesn’t support your assertion that the changes were voted and agreed upon by the community.

[Serendipity]

  I'll be the second (after Derek) to admit that's he was wrong if we're still all here in a couple of years predicting CIG will fall over shortly.

Derek's been saying it for 2 years already. Let's see where we are in another 12 months.

The engine has been significantly reworked and it performs absolutely fine in offline mode or when the server is fresh or empty. Netcode is holding it all back for now.

You DO realize that it's an online-only game, right?

Also, no, the performance isn't "absolutely fine". Geez man, you're not even trying anymore. If anything, even the most hardcore SC loyalists know that the game is an absolute performance hog.

The client can be hacked to work offline. It removes the server limitations and provides a smooth gaming experience. Yes it's a resource hog but that never stopped Crysis shipping millions of copies.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5k2h16/26_play_offline/

Do try to keep up dear, non official offline mode has been available for a long time.

Let's assume that CIG has money issues. Recent events are a strong indication of that. The ungoing sales for cash only, the loan in the UK et cetera are clear signs of that.   

Terrible assumption. Attempting to generate sales doesn't mean a company is in financial trouble. Cleverly using collateral to get a loan to save money on exchange rates isn't a sign they're in financial trouble. Mass lay offs and stories of non payment of wages would be a sign of financial trouble.

Let's see if they exist as a company in 12 months. I'm sure if they do they'll be just around the corner from financial collapse still, according to some at least.

[N0mad]

Hi Serendipity, so you think CIG are being completely honest with their backers?

[Serendipity]

Hi Serendipity, so you think CIG are being completely honest with their backers?

I believe they're honest in the sense that plans, scopes and timeframes change, often without warning or any clue to the necessities. I believe they do their best to build a game under intense scrutiny and vitriol. I believe lots try to find as many inconsistencies as possible with comments from a large company who's internal communication can be improved.

Basically, yes I do. Errors have been made. Guestimates have been poor. Things have changed but on the whole they're just a game dev company trying to make a game.

[BigM]

Basically, yes I do. Errors have been made. Guesstimates have been poor. Things have changed but on the whole, they're just a game dev company trying to make a game.

Taking the "they're just a game dev company trying to make a game" out, rest of statement can be directed to CR's past and why he can't release a game without major help from the big boys!

I really would have been expecting the game to be moving to an early beta by this time. Just taking what CR has stated in the past alpha should have been long gone.

[dsmart]

Derek's been saying it for 2 years already. Let's see where we are in another 12 months.

This again?

Do we need to remind you that when analysts make predictions, it's based on info "on hand at the time"?

When I said that back in Oct 2015, that was before a bunch of whales stuck in Sunk Cost Falllacy, decided to keep giving them money, even as CIG continued to use deception and trickery to aid that effort. And it's only now some of you are feigning shock and surprise that it's precisely what they've been doing all this time.

Now 2.8 years late, and $90.5M over budget, please explain to me HOW they would still be operational at the end of Jan 2016, after having raised $107M.

So yes, in a way, I was right. This is evidenced by the fact that the project is late, is nowhere near completion, and has raised an additional $48M since end of Jan 2016. If backers had stopped giving them money, the project, for all intent and purposes, would most likely be dead by now.

The client can be hacked to work offline. It removes the server limitations and provides a smooth gaming experience.

Jesus H. Christ on crutches, man! Did you have a partial lobotomy? Because, damn. This is an online only game. And you're talking about hacking offline - which means no other players, as well as a "smooth gaming experience" as a result of the hack?

Yes it's a resource hog but that never stopped Crysis shipping millions of copies.

That's not what is making it raise money. Get a grip.

Cleverly using collateral to get a loan to save money on exchange rates isn't a sign they're in financial trouble. Mass lay offs and stories of non payment of wages would be a sign of financial trouble.

Except that's not what they did. And only complete morons believe the rubbish explanation that Ortwin, who has every reason to lie, as they have done many times in the past, gave. If it wasn't such a big deal, WHY did he feel the need to come out on a SUNDAY to address a furor that I apparently started when I tweeted and wrote about the loan?

[Motto]

If the loan indeed was a wise decision, CIG would have made a public statement, because, of course, it was a wise decision. So publically telling about it should boost the morale of both backers and investors. Why hide good news?

But, they didn't. They kept quiet. Until the news broke and they had to issue a statement about it. Not to boost morale, but to prevent people actually loosing morale because it wasn't a good deal, but a shitty one. A desperate move to keep afloat yet another month. Now, that's a good reason to not tell about it. As they tried.

[Meowz]

If the loan indeed was a wise decision, CIG would have made a public statement, because, of course, it was a wise decision. So publically telling about it should boost the morale of both backers and investors. Why hide good news?

But, they didn't. They kept quiet. Until the news broke and they had to issue a statement about it. Not to boost morale, but to prevent people actually loosing morale because it wasn't a good deal, but a shitty one. A desperate move to keep afloat yet another month. Now, that's a good reason to not tell about it. As they tried.

If the reasons they stated were true (lol), I can't think of any reason why they would make something like that public knowledge, or address it unless it became public knowledge as it did.

[Meowz]

I liked Serendipity's playing devil's advocate at first to balance out the echo chamber here, but there reaches a point where it goes from a good debate to talking to a wall. When both sides keep bringing up the same points its obviously devolved into wall speak. Why do you guys even bother with Serendipity anymore, and Serendipity why do you bother when you seem unwilling to consider any other view points currently?