https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize...ll_claims_court_case/?st=j8uldzmu&sh=79e9ea3c
There. Apparently they are considering 3.0 the mvp and are now going to stop doing refunds on that basis. Should of gotten out when you could.
Even looking at the reddit starcitizen_refunds area, I'm not seeing anyone being in for 13k, let alone someone being in for that much who is lawyering up. In the future please provide better links. It's the same standard everyone holds everyone else to here, so I see no reason it can't be the same here.
Not entirely sure I don't agree with the current denial of this refund. The account was an active grey market trader who is now trying to get a refund for all the ships he still has associated on the account that he couldn't sell....https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize...ll_claims_court_case/?st=j8uldzmu&sh=79e9ea3c
There. Apparently they are considering 3.0 the mvp and are now going to stop doing refunds on that basis. Should of gotten out when you could.
what you are trying to do right now is make it seem I was doing a mod call out to try and get me probated for it. You are putting words in my mouth with malicious intent.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize...ll_claims_court_case/?st=j8uldzmu&sh=79e9ea3c
There. Apparently they are considering 3.0 the mvp and are now going to stop doing refunds on that basis. Should of gotten out when you could.
Not entirely sure I don't agree with the current denial of this refund. The account was an active grey market trader who is now trying to get a refund for all the ships he still has associated on the account that he couldn't sell....
Yes, they certainly did (I even did some trading myself). But what they didn't do was tell people to buy 30 ships and hope to resell them. They encouraged simple sales (i.e. "hey, I can get you that ship with LTI, don't buy the one that only has 6 months insurance, pay me XXX and I will then purchase the ship for you and transfer it to you"). This guy is like the car dealership that bought too much inventory and is now complaining to corporate that they should be reimbursed for all their unsold items (note, it doesn't work that way).cig encouraged gray market when it was beneficial for them.
Yes, they certainly did (I even did some trading myself). But what they didn't do was tell people to buy 30 ships and hope to resell them. They encouraged simple sales (i.e. "hey, I can get you that ship with LTI, don't buy the one that only has 6 months insurance, pay me XXX and I will then purchase the ship for you and transfer it to you"). This guy is like the car dealership that bought too much inventory and is now complaining to corporate that they should be reimbursed for all their unsold items (note, it doesn't work that way).
So you are comparing a game that was in development for 4 years, and is out now and has been for 5 years. To a game thats been in development for 5 years, and doesnt even have a full alpha build out? And likely wont see a full release for several years? You sure drank the SC Kool Aid.
So in 2011/2012 Squadron 42 was bundled with Star Citizen, but with a warning that it would cease to be part of the deal at some future time? Or did it become a separate game in 2016 after four to five years of fundraising with Squadron 42 as part of Star Citizen?No. From the beginning CIG said that it would be creating two games (Squadron 42 and Star Citizen) and that at some point in time, the products would no longer be bundled together in their pledge store. On February 15th, 2016, a basic starter package for Star Citizen no longer included Squadron 42. SQ42 is currently a $15 add-on.
This was all part of the plan. And this is a rare example of CIG getting it right. They communicated the plan well in advance, and then executed the plan they communicated.
So in 2011/2012 Squadron 42 was bundled with Star Citizen, but with a warning that it would cease to be part of the deal at some future time? Or did it become a separate game in 2016 after four to five years of fundraising with Squadron 42 as part of Star Citizen?
Isn't Squadron 42 still listed as a 2017 release? Do you think that will happen?
And you're comparing a game that handles a town, to a game that handles a galaxy...
There are so many differences here, I honestly just don't have the tolerance to try explaining them. They are pretty obvious. I have to think that you are willfully ignoring the obvious, huge differences. Possibly because you have a vendetta against the game or developer? Anywho.. I don't think everyone is "drinking the SC koolaid" as is insultingly implied, as if everyone but the haters are ignorant.. Again, it's pretty obvious people are just hyped and hopeful. Some people are incapale of ever being either of those things.. Those people don't tend to smile often..
Oops, hit reply to the wrong thing.. It's called an accident.. Like the one your dad made when he put you in your mom.. Since you want to use insulting tones. I can glady respond in kind..Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit, i was not the one who made the GTA comparison Fallen Kell was.
Correct. I made the comparison to a well known game (to almost anyone who is older than 13) to give some perspective on game development times as there have been extensive information released as to what it took to make GTA V from the devs and game studio in interviews over the years. I would have made the comparison to something like World of Warcraft (approx 4.5 years has been floated, but not definitely confirmed and no word on staffing), or FF XV (at least 10 years to develop as work began before it's announcement in 2006, and it wasn't released until 2016, but no good word on staffing levels through those years) , but as said there has been a lack of verified information on what it took to develop those games. Probably a better example might be something like Guild Wars 2 (5 years of initial development, but again, no data on people working on the game)... Again though, very little confirmed development times (with size of teams involved).Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit, i was not the one who made the GTA comparison Fallen Kell was.
This is all to point out what it actually takes to develop a game for people who have not actually been a developer and don't understand how things actually work in programming and the game industry which typically holds things close until work has reached a point that the game could be releasable in 1-2 years.
because development isnt an industry.As someone who is not a programmer or developer, the one thing I've never understood is why there are no productivity gains in software development. We are continually told: good games take x years to make. We were told the same thing years ago too. Yet every other industry known to mankind has seen productivity gains. But that "x" number of years never seems to get smaller when it comes to software development.
Thanks for the info. I too will only be interested in the single player, if any.Yes from the beginning in 2012 SQ42/Star Citizen were packaged together with CIG being very open about the fact they would split the products in the future. That happened in 2016 with months of announcements beforehand. In fact, the very earliest backers in 2012 are also going to get Behind Enemy Lines (the sequel to SQ42) for free as well as it was a stretch goal.
Until last week, the Squadron 42 web page had "2017" listed on it. Last week, they quietly removed the "2017". There is zero chance it will be released this year or next.
From my perspective, it's become CIG's bastard child. We haven't seen any updates on it in over a year and they keep pushing back when they will talk about it. It just doesn't seem to get any attention from CIG, which is disappointing to me because I want the single player experience more than Star Citizen.
because development isnt an industry.
every other industry has fixed known science/logistics/pipeline. tools and processes improve but the core output is still playing by rules established decades ago. Programming and specifically game programming frequently toss out everything(tools and knowledge/experience) when they migrate to the next game engine. when EA went to frostbite for all its studios there was a massive bitchfest as devs who could crank out a demo/prototype in a week suddenly had to spend a year to get the same result on a new engine. a steel foundry may come up with new alloys and treatments but they dont throw out their crucibles every 4 years.
on the asset creation side there have been all kinds of productivity gains. 640x480 1024x768 1080p 4k, 8bit 16bit 24bit 32bit hdri, texture sizes, vertex/poly count, animation rig bone count and deformers. and yet all get viewed on the same 24" screen you have had for a decade so no one sees the jump in quality/quantity.
you might as well ask why novel writers arent cranking out books every 3 months. clearly George RR Martin is being slowed down by his antiquated dedicated hardware word processor.
Well, partly it is as has been said by others in this thread, changing tools requires relearning how to do things, etc., but that is only part of it. So many people think and try to manage software development like you would a production line that makes some kind of physical item, but it doesn't work that way at all. You can come up with the most detailed project plans and gantt charts, use different methodologies (waterfall, agile...), and so on, but creating timelines for those plans is an utter fallacy, as within development, you really don't know how long it will take to get good, working, bug limited code for anything but the most simple of tasks which you have previously written code to do. Everything that hasn't been done before is an unknown, and what may have seemed to be something that looked simple back in the planning stage is actually one of the hardest things to get working correctly because everything is new/custom.As someone who is not a programmer or developer, the one thing I've never understood is why there are no productivity gains in software development. We are continually told: good games take x years to make. We were told the same thing years ago too. Yet every other industry known to mankind has seen productivity gains. But that "x" number of years never seems to get smaller when it comes to software development.
I don't know why people keep calling it an engine switch. Star Citizen was using cryengine. Lumberyard is cryengine with mods. Not only that, but Star Citizen's version of cryengine they were using was the same version that Amazon used as the base for lumberyard. It doesn't take much to swap out the same base code and merge the mods that were made to cryengine onto another codebase of the same cryengine that had some mods added to it. You simply run diffs of the codebase to find any/all mods between the base code (original cryengine) and modded code (lumberyard) (since they have both, this is trivial), and you look for conflicts between your mods and any of the changes found in the diffs which you then make any updates to resolve any conflicts (if any even existed at all as both CIG and Amazon would have had to make different incompatible mods to the same part of the codebase, which is not as likely as you would suspect when Amazon if focusing on adding network and cloud based integration, while CIG was focused on 3D positional precision, item/object handling, and localized physics containment, very little overlap would exist between those various modifications). CIG has stated it took very little effort to make said change, and there is no technical reason why such a change couldn't be as trivial as they said it was, and no information (other than speculation) to dispute it.It didn't help at all that they switched game engines in basically the middle of the project, and had to restart.
So, suing because you "lost" $$$ in a highly speculative endeavor like this was, makes no sense.
I don't know why people keep calling it an engine switch. Star Citizen was using cryengine. Lumberyard is cryengine with mods. Not only that, but Star Citizen's version of cryengine they were using was the same version that Amazon used as the base for lumberyard. It doesn't take much to swap out the same base code and merge the mods that were made to cryengine onto another codebase of the same cryengine that had some mods added to it. You simply run diffs of the codebase to find any/all mods between the base code (original cryengine) and modded code (lumberyard) (since they have both, this is trivial), and you look for conflicts between your mods and any of the changes found in the diffs which you then make any updates to resolve any conflicts (if any even existed at all as both CIG and Amazon would have had to make different incompatible mods to the same part of the codebase, which is not as likely as you would suspect when Amazon if focusing on adding network and cloud based integration, while CIG was focused on 3D positional precision, item/object handling, and localized physics containment, very little overlap would exist between those various modifications). CIG has stated it took very little effort to make said change, and there is no technical reason why such a change couldn't be as trivial as they said it was, and no information (other than speculation) to dispute it.
This is no more difficult than merging two branches of a code tree together (something that happens all the time in development work were there are more than one team of developers working on different sub-projects within the same codebase).
Yes, forked code trees can and have lead to huge problems, but they do not always lead to issues (and neigher you nor I are in a position to know if it did cause issues, and the people who do know stated there were no major issues).Actually forked code trees have lead to huge problems. Amazon has been adding hundreds of changes to lumberyard, which makes the merging even more difficult. You just repeat stale lies come up by these screw ups.