I've been away from the PC gaming scene for a while now, and as such - most MMOs.
What I am going to say is that I would rather throw my $$ at overpriced DLC and microtransactions in my console games than throw a PENNY at anything related to crowdfunding - and this is why.
This is exactly, exactly why.
At least the big games with big publishers are accountable to actually release products. People thought crowdfunding would allow developers to build the games they wanted to make instead of having to pander to what the big, evil publishers thought would sell better...
But I think people are starting to realize that publishers do serve an important function in the gaming industry, and I think a lot of publisher hate is misdirected - most games that suck have nothing to do with the publisher rushing the devs or forcing changes etc.
It's just that game development is difficult, very difficult, and the fanboi levels of "thou who cannot do wrong" just isn't reality. No studio, no developer is free from the real-life constraints of game development.
If you can't sell/pitch your idea to a money-man, 9 times out of 10, it's not a good idea. Investors (publishers) line up and beg for amazing development studios... that's kind of what a publisher is - someone (group) who profits off of the success and talent of others. They're an enabler.
It's like, Sony vs Microsoft - Sony is putting all of their money and push into exclusive deals and exclusive games, while Microsoft is putt all of their money and push into first party published games.
Which approach do you think is better for the industry, as a whole?
I've been away from the PC gaming scene for a while now, and as such - most MMOs.
What I am going to say is that I would rather throw my $$ at overpriced DLC and microtransactions in my console games than throw a PENNY at anything related to crowdfunding - and this is why.
This is exactly, exactly why.
At least the big games with big publishers are accountable to actually release products. People thought crowdfunding would allow developers to build the games they wanted to make instead of having to pander to what the big, evil publishers thought would sell better...
But I think people are starting to realize that publishers do serve an important function in the gaming industry, and I think a lot of publisher hate is misdirected - most games that suck have nothing to do with the publisher rushing the devs or forcing changes etc.
It's just that game development is difficult, very difficult, and the fanboi levels of "thou who cannot do wrong" just isn't reality. No studio, no developer is free from the real-life constraints of game development.
If you can't sell/pitch your idea to a money-man, 9 times out of 10, it's not a good idea. Investors (publishers) line up and beg for amazing development studios... that's kind of what a publisher is - someone (group) who profits off of the success and talent of others. They're an enabler.
It's like, Sony vs Microsoft - Sony is putting all of their money and push into exclusive deals and exclusive games, while Microsoft is putt all of their money and push into first party published games.
Which approach do you think is better for the industry, as a whole?
As far as it being a "gift" FTC has already set precedent on this with the case they just completed. It was considered legally a promise of goods
Actually, you're right. A friend just reminded me about that, and I need to look into it. Though, that's not exactly what I meant when I wrote about it in the article. Crowdfunding gives you no rights to property in the same sense that purchasing or investing would. You have no say in how it's delivered or whether what's delivered is acceptable or not.
I shouldn't really call it a gift, though. You're correct about that, and I do need to find a better way to phrase it. This probably sounds weird, but I honestly do appreciate you calling me on it.
I won't comment on the quality of the articlr, as anyone has kept track of my posts in that big ole SC thread over on the game forums knows Red pretty much writes exactly how I feel about CIG and this project.
Selling new ship designs whIle older sold ones still aren't even developed into functional models and delivered to buyers is.... Awful. It's a shady practice, regardless of the reasoning behind it.
Restaurants don't try to sell you dessert before they even bring out your entree.
Actually sometimes restaurants do Sorry, just found that part personally comical do to recent dining experiences.
I would advise avoiding those restaurants then, haha.
I've never been asked to buy a dessert before I was ready for the wait staff to take my dinner plate. For obvious reasons, it seems a little silly unless the dinner price includes the dessert as a course.
Short version: They make all their deserts fresh daily and only one of each cake, pie, etc. So they regularly inform people if one is almost gone when they seat you.
Actually, yeah. The wife and I are foodies, so we eat at a lot of different places. There actually are places that bake dessert to order, so you have to order early. Order dessert with your appetizer, and it'll be ready post-entree. So neener-neener. =P
Well the underlying point still stands, even if you folks' fancy schmancy restaurants break my analogy!
I've been away from the PC gaming scene for a while now, and as such - most MMOs.
What I am going to say is that I would rather throw my $$ at overpriced DLC and microtransactions in my console games than throw a PENNY at anything related to crowdfunding - and this is why.
This is exactly, exactly why.
At least the big games with big publishers are accountable to actually release products. People thought crowdfunding would allow developers to build the games they wanted to make instead of having to pander to what the big, evil publishers thought would sell better...
But I think people are starting to realize that publishers do serve an important function in the gaming industry, and I think a lot of publisher hate is misdirected - most games that suck have nothing to do with the publisher rushing the devs or forcing changes etc.
It's just that game development is difficult, very difficult, and the fanboi levels of "thou who cannot do wrong" just isn't reality. No studio, no developer is free from the real-life constraints of game development.
If you can't sell/pitch your idea to a money-man, 9 times out of 10, it's not a good idea. Investors (publishers) line up and beg for amazing development studios... that's kind of what a publisher is - someone (group) who profits off of the success and talent of others. They're an enabler.
It's like, Sony vs Microsoft - Sony is putting all of their money and push into exclusive deals and exclusive games, while Microsoft is putt all of their money and push into first party published games.
Which approach do you think is better for the industry, as a whole?
Paragraphs are your friends.
Umm I see ... a square with something inside it O.o
This whole thing is FUBAR at this point. They are in way too deep, and shit is going to hit the fan. How does that saying go? "No such thing as bad press." Well, I think in the case of SC, they've proven that to be false. They are getting skewered ATM, and their responses just makes them look worse. I feel real bad for all the people invested and wanting this game, but at this point, I just want to watch the fail cascade.
As far as it being a "gift" FTC has already set precedent on this with the case they just completed. It was considered legally a promise of goods
Actually, you're right. A friend just reminded me about that, and I need to look into it. Though, that's not exactly what I meant when I wrote about it in the article. Crowdfunding gives you no rights to property in the same sense that purchasing or investing would. You have no say in how it's delivered or whether what's delivered is acceptable or not.
I shouldn't really call it a gift, though. You're correct about that, and I do need to find a better way to phrase it. This probably sounds weird, but I honestly do appreciate you calling me on it.
Basicly if the "promise" isn't fulfilled "any stated refund policy must be fulfilled". That "any" nomenclature should make some people worried. As more cases go foward there is likely to be clarity on that point.
As far as it being a "gift" FTC has already set precedent on this with the case they just completed. It was considered legally a promise of goods
Actually, you're right. A friend just reminded me about that, and I need to look into it. Though, that's not exactly what I meant when I wrote about it in the article. Crowdfunding gives you no rights to property in the same sense that purchasing or investing would. You have no say in how it's delivered or whether what's delivered is acceptable or not.
I shouldn't really call it a gift, though. You're correct about that, and I do need to find a better way to phrase it. This probably sounds weird, but I honestly do appreciate you calling me on it.
Actually crowdfunding gives you right to the property of what comes in the "rewards", yes. Its just that it was not build yet. Its the same thing like buy a project to build a house. You are buying the house in the end of the day. You are just unable to move to the new home because it was not constructed yet. But who you paid, are obligated to deliver to you in the conditions settled in the contract. In case of crowfunding these terms will be set by things like TOS and the advertising.
After FUNDED, it becomes from a gamble (not really so risky because you can get your money back if not funded) to a purchase. A pre-order and actually, people got that backwards.
In fact, crowdfunding has more obligations of the business than those who pre-order their stuff, in terms of how they will spend the money from the purchase.
While who pre-order something has no obligation to spend the money in the project, those crowdfunding have such obligation and not spending the money on that, is fraud.
Meaning that you are actually more "entitled", not in define how its going to be done, but to know/require proof if the money were spend in the right way, obviously, in case of the company showing signs of issues that they are not willing to tell you, or simply cancel the project out of the thin air, without proper reasons (which in the end of the day, only could be corroborated by an investigation of how the money was spent).
I've been away from the PC gaming scene for a while now, and as such - most MMOs.
What I am going to say is that I would rather throw my $$ at overpriced DLC and microtransactions in my console games than throw a PENNY at anything related to crowdfunding - and this is why.
This is exactly, exactly why.
At least the big games with big publishers are accountable to actually release products. People thought crowdfunding would allow developers to build the games they wanted to make instead of having to pander to what the big, evil publishers thought would sell better...
But I think people are starting to realize that publishers do serve an important function in the gaming industry, and I think a lot of publisher hate is misdirected - most games that suck have nothing to do with the publisher rushing the devs or forcing changes etc.
It's just that game development is difficult, very difficult, and the fanboi levels of "thou who cannot do wrong" just isn't reality. No studio, no developer is free from the real-life constraints of game development.
If you can't sell/pitch your idea to a money-man, 9 times out of 10, it's not a good idea. Investors (publishers) line up and beg for amazing development studios... that's kind of what a publisher is - someone (group) who profits off of the success and talent of others. They're an enabler.
It's like, Sony vs Microsoft - Sony is putting all of their money and push into exclusive deals and exclusive games, while Microsoft is putt all of their money and push into first party published games.
Which approach do you think is better for the industry, as a whole?
Actually you're wrong. It can be done. It's legal. And I've done it.
What you do is you offer them a deal and either buy their shares for a small amount based on what the company is valued at the time, or the give it up in exchange for non-prosecution of any uncovered wrong-doing.
And this has nothing to do with people who created a company keeping their shares. It's about the survival of the company and a plan toward a clean slate.
It happens ALL the time. Founders leave without any part of the company. And in most cases, if they refuse to take such deals, that's when very bad things happen.
No, sir. With respect, you are. Your post says to "strip" them of their shares, and you can't do that. That's different from convincing them to give those shares up willingly. Assuming there even are shares. I don't believe there was any VC funding in SC, so I'm not sure they ever actually created shares. They may have and probably did, just don't know.
But yes, I DO agree that most of the leadership leaving would be the best thing in the interests of the company, and yes that should be paramount. However, this isn't a publically traded company and unless they set it up so that Chris doesn't own the controlling interest (which I really doubt), you can't strip him or anyone else of anything.
The problem with total warfare is that there's no room for mediation. You're never going to convince anyone to leave under those terms, so I don't really think it's a viable solution.
Aw, you guys went and said the devil's name, (DS) and now he's appeared. Don't you realize that once he knows you are listening, he'll never let you go?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
This article as well as the Escapist article are both full of hearsay and irresponsible journalism. There are no verifiable sources, facts or content; it's all opinion and conjecture. Please consider this when forming your opinion of anything. There are plenty of facts about SC's development out there to form a good opinion.
That was only a rhetorical question, so I didn't really prepare any other response other than, so if there is a subject matter expert in hostile takeovers then he'd be the one! No?
I keep seeing people say unsubstantiated allegations and supposition. Am I the only one reminded of Bill Cosby? I guess nine people coming forward just isn't enough, you'll need to get 50+ before anyone takes this seriously.
In case of bill cosby victims are coming forward publicly, they are not hiding behind anonymous identity like CS1, CS2.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Yeah, if I could figure out how this stupid site worked. I wrote it with all kinds of nice formatting, this BS new forum crap shat out garbage.
If you respond at the bottom of the article itself, it ignores paragraphs. You have to actually post it in the thread for the formatting to work... and yes, it's annoying.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Yeah, if I could figure out how this stupid site worked. I wrote it with all kinds of nice formatting, this BS new forum crap shat out garbage.
On the articles it's sometimes easier to use HTML break tags. <They don't use the same formatting as the forums.> It used to be a lot worse back when paragraphs word wrapped after 10 words or so. One comment could take up 1/2 a page
It's a good to see different perspectives among fellow backers, but did he forget or did he not watch the Video with Chris Roberts and Ben Lesnick explaining that Erin Roberts is stepping in the role of leading all the offices on the project thus leading to this reorganization.
To be fair, he does not actually say that CryEngine can utilize 16 cores, just that they run the demo on machines with 16 cores and loads of memory.
But I guess people will read that how they want.
You do understand that in order to see performance gains for using said 16 core machine, the game engine would need to be able to utilize those threads, correct? If you use a 16 core cpu for a game that only use 8, such as SC you won't see any performance gains. You'd need to overclock an 8 core cpu.
Edit: It's really just DS showing he has no idea what he's talking about.
That was only a rhetorical question, so I didn't really prepare any other response other than, so if there is a subject matter expert in hostile takeovers then he'd be the one! No?
How do you conduct a hostile takeover of a privately owned company when the controlling interest is held by one person? You don't need to be an expert to answer that. Try googling it.
I'm not taking his opinion on something just because of who it is, and neither should you. Look it up, and see if you can understand what he's talking about. I'm betting you can, because it's not complicated. If you read it and still think what he's suggesting is possible, than that's cool. I don't mind folks disagreeing with me. Just don't do it because some guy says it's possible, though. In this case, he happens to be wrong about it to the best of my knowledge. ...but then, you shouldn't take my word for that either.
It's a good to see different perspectives among fellow backers, but did he forget or did he not watch the Video with Chris Roberts and Ben Lesnick explaining that Erin Roberts is stepping in the role of leading all the offices on the project thus leading to this reorganization.
And that is likely to be a huge positive for CIG. He seems to be the most qualified to do so.
Comments
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
I shouldn't really call it a gift, though. You're correct about that, and I do need to find a better way to phrase it. This probably sounds weird, but I honestly do appreciate you calling me on it.
Basicly if the "promise" isn't fulfilled "any stated refund policy must be fulfilled". That "any" nomenclature should make some people worried. As more cases go foward there is likely to be clarity on that point.
EDIT I suck at spelling bees too.
After FUNDED, it becomes from a gamble (not really so risky because you can get your money back if not funded) to a purchase. A pre-order and actually, people got that backwards.
In fact, crowdfunding has more obligations of the business than those who pre-order their stuff, in terms of how they will spend the money from the purchase.
While who pre-order something has no obligation to spend the money in the project, those crowdfunding have such obligation and not spending the money on that, is fraud.
Meaning that you are actually more "entitled", not in define how its going to be done, but to know/require proof if the money were spend in the right way, obviously, in case of the company showing signs of issues that they are not willing to tell you, or simply cancel the project out of the thin air, without proper reasons (which in the end of the day, only could be corroborated by an investigation of how the money was spent).
But yes, I DO agree that most of the leadership leaving would be the best thing in the interests of the company, and yes that should be paramount. However, this isn't a publically traded company and unless they set it up so that Chris doesn't own the controlling interest (which I really doubt), you can't strip him or anyone else of anything.
The problem with total warfare is that there's no room for mediation. You're never going to convince anyone to leave under those terms, so I don't really think it's a viable solution.
Edit: Yep I guess others noticed rofl
https://twitter.com/Accelerwraith/status/651988092698529793
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
That was only a rhetorical question, so I didn't really prepare any other response other than, so if there is a subject matter expert in hostile takeovers then he'd be the one! No?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
But I guess people will read that how they want.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
On the articles it's sometimes easier to use HTML break tags. <They don't use the same formatting as the forums.> It used to be a lot worse back when paragraphs word wrapped after 10 words or so. One comment could take up 1/2 a page
Edit: It's really just DS showing he has no idea what he's talking about.
I'm not taking his opinion on something just because of who it is, and neither should you. Look it up, and see if you can understand what he's talking about. I'm betting you can, because it's not complicated. If you read it and still think what he's suggesting is possible, than that's cool. I don't mind folks disagreeing with me. Just don't do it because some guy says it's possible, though. In this case, he happens to be wrong about it to the best of my knowledge. ...but then, you shouldn't take my word for that either.
He seems to be the most qualified to do so.