A bit more occam's razor would be good. For example: If they were really trying to bullshit backers would a 150+mio company not be able to fake a demo with some gameplay that lasts for 15 minutes? I'd say: they absolutely would. The fact they're showing this jigsaw-puzzle of a demo is more an indication that they are actually trying not to devote too many (read: even more) ressources into a special gamescom-fake-demo to look good but they are actually trying to show the best version of what they actually have.
Wot? They've been called out numerous times for creating special R&D bullshit to mislead backers. The biggest was in GamesCom/CitizenCon last year. And there was a major fallout. Why would they do that again?
Also, when you think about it, even this GC2017 presentation is almost the same thing because not only is it
NOT the actual full 3.0 game build, but it's also specific parts they claimed to have culled out and restricted (for ludicrous reasons). So unless and until 3.0 is released, and backers are playing what they are currently seeing at GC2017, there is no way of knowing whether or not this wasn't just another specific build they put together for the show.
This* is what I posted on SA yesterday about that.
As Derek has stated multiple times (between bursts of polemic statements ;)):
OK, that made me lol :smuggo:
there is no malicious conscious effort to scam people here. They are trying. Derek contends they can not do it (to the full extend of their promises).
While that may be the case, and I would (in part) concede that point to
some extent, it doesn't absolve them of the underlying scam tactics.
If you are telling your investors/client (in this case, backers) that you can do something, and they are funding you to do it, when you know that you can't do it, but you keep giving the impression that you can, even as you keep taking money for it, that's not only a
scam, it's also
fraud. That's the gist of it.
Aside from the fact that, if during the furtherance of that scam/fraud the people at the top (The Nine) got rich (as they would be, from the money spent), that also make them complicit, regardless of whether or not they were "trying" to make the game. And that's why
Unjust Enrichment is the most often used cause of action in suing people who took money and didn't fulfill promises. This is the basis of which lawsuits and jail time are built. Heck, you can go to FTC or PACER right now and see a litany of tried and won cases based on less. Heck, even investors can sue company execs if they spent their money legitimately, but made bad choices that ended in a loss. This is why the SEC mandates disclosures in all investor filings so that if a company puts out projections, and they miss it, investors don't rush to sue them just because they can.
So no, it doesn't matter whether or not they are TRYING. What matters is that they deliver what they promised. So far, it's clear that they can't, and they're lying about it.
I agree that Star Citizen will cut down its list of promised features significantly at some point. I don't think the company will completely implode but they will release something that falls significantly short of the stated ambition. The whole theory the company will go belly-up rests on the assumption that they have actually blown through most of their money already. Which is possible but there is no strong evidence to support it (nor is there any evidence they are in tip-top-shape).
It will. And we will be having a different discussion, right here, when it does.
They will never -
EVER - release anything that resembles a "game", let alone anything close to what they promised. You know why? Because for that to happen, they have to go from the
current pre-Alpha -> Alpha -> Beta -> Release Candidate -> Release. Go ahead, and tell me with a straight face that you see them going all the way to the end of that road when, six years and $156M later, they're still in pre-Alpha in which
not even 15% of what they promised has been done.
Long post short: I wish this board wasn't so mean-spirited and far out and trying more to really analyse the situation in a realistic manner. Derek, even while being snide, makes an effort to really support his arguments by meticulously listing reasons and sources for his prognosis. Let's have more of that. But yeah, some are just here for the lulz I get it.
LOL!! This is not a safe space. That's over on /r/StarCitizen or Spectrum.
But in all seriousness, we're all skeptics here; and most of us just got sick of the bullshit. And in my case, the only skin I have in the game is that after vilifying me incessantly, my only goal now is to
nag and expose them until the final end where I am proven
100% (so far I am 99%) that they simply couldn't build the game they promised in 2012, and that they've been engaged in scam tactics in a bid to prolong it via "Fake it til you make it" doctrine.
*
Over on SA..ManofManyAliases posted:
Calm down, big boy. There is only one build. That build is locked to daymar only on a private server. If they had people playing around and quantum jumping all over the place in the full, unlocked build, no one would see each other in the play-throughs.
You know all about completing something but locking the features, right?
Newsflash. I'm a dev. And yes, I do know all about locking features, only unlocking them for testing etc.
But that's not what we're talking about here. So pay attention....
What we're talking about is a 3.0 build in which 99% of what was promised in the build, isn't being played - like right now. Instead, they have a separate CryEngine level (sphere in a box) with some ships and ground vehicles. Basically, Arena Commander on a barren rock.
If 3.0 is in ANY state to be shown, as they have said repeatedly, why was it necessary to "chop" it up and make a "demo"?
As a dev, only a fucking moron would buy that bullshit about people jumping all over the place when in fact, these past years, the very same game has been shown/played in streams - with "people playing around and quantum jumping all over the place in the full, unlocked build" - and nobody complained because, well guess what Princess, that's how large games, especially MMO games, are.
That aside from the fact that they bothered to put spawn points on Daymar. Why would they need to do that, when they could very well have left the PU intact, but just have QT from Olisar to Daymar (not even the other two planetoids)?
And as they have been touting these moons, the size, scope etc, why now would those very same features be a hindrance?
The current 2.6.3 build is more feature rich than this "3.0 demo". And the former isn't even being played at the show. It's almost as if it doesn't exist anymore, or that they're embarrassed to show/play it live.
So what's left to be seen is how much different Chris's presentation build will be on Friday. In the meantime, tomorrow Thurs, we look forward to more ganky shit.
