rpmcmurphy

About

Username
rpmcmurphy
Location
Dublin
Joined
Visits
1,607
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
1,474
Rank
Rare
Posts
2,506
Badges
34
  • 3.0 Spoilers From An Evocati

    DKLond said:
    I don't know how many times CIG have to explain that the server can't provide better performance for the clients until they implement the new netcode they've been working on for a very long time.

    Originally, most of that was supposed to be in 3.0 - but it was postponed for 3.1 I believe.

    Meaning, even if there's going to be SOME performance improvement in 3.0 (LIVE version) - it won't be until 3.1 that we're going to see how the planned netcode integration will improve the performance.

    Also, it won't be until they have a solid frame-rate that they expand the player count.

    This, too, has been made public several times - and yet it seems the detractors are still conveniently forgetting and pretending that this early Evocati build is, somehow, representative of the best CIG can do.

    It's the same old bullshit ;)

    Perhaps that's because at the moment it really is the best they can do. Until they deliver these magical changes one can only judge on what is currently available, who knows how much the networking changes allegedly coming in 3.1 will affect things?

    Network performance has meant to be getting better for years, it shouldn't come as any surprise that people are a bit jaded by now.

    ---

    As an aside, I was very surprised to read they haven't even started on their server mesh technology, instead they are focusing on the single server performance and optimisation (lol).

    KefoMaxBacon
  • Star Citizen 3.0 - Refusing Refunds

    Eldurian said:
    The reason the even have NDA videos is because of little snot noses who can't figure out that the pre-release of a pre-release is going to be a bit buggy and try to compare it to released titles that were just as buggy at that stage of development.

    Ironically, the reason they implemented the evocatis is because there was so much whinging from star citizen backers about how buggy the builds were, how often the game was crashing and how much they were having to download....


    Excessionkikoodutroa8Gdemami
  • Star Citizen 3.0 - Refusing Refunds

    Out of curiousity, if you purchase something on CIG's website does it say

    "Thank you for your purchase. Your order number is #XXXXXX"
    or does it say
    "Thank you for your donation. Your donor number is #XXXXXX"
    GdemamiExcession
  • Star Citizen 3.0 - Refusing Refunds

    Gdemami said:
    rpmcmurphy said:
    Making a pledge on the KS website does not necessarily make it a donation.
    Yes, that is precisely what pledging makes of you - a donor. It is an entire principle of fundraising/crowdfunding.

    I am done with this conversation, you are trying so hard it goes beyond stupid...

    The only person trying so hard is yourself. You're grasping every which way to redefine a sale as a donation....

    Just because something is labelled fundraising or crowdfunding does not mean it is exempt from consumer law.
    Gdemami
  • Star Citizen 3.0 - Refusing Refunds

    Gdemami said:
    The TOS doesn't really mean much though, they can write whatever they want but if it attempts to break consumer law then it has no bearing.
    Lucky backers are not consumers then, they are donors.

    Again, whether you are fundraising via Kickstarter or directly through your website makes no difference - you pledge/donate, you are a donor.

    Kickstarter backers could be argued to be donors but even that is something which is not clarified. Making a pledge on the KS website does not necessarily make it a donation.

    Anyone making a purchase from CIG's web store would be considered a customer. They are making a purchase and they fulfilling their end of the transaction immediately, thus it is a sale. There's no expectation of receiving goods when making a donation, ie you are giving them money/goods for free. That's not the case with any crowdfunded game.


    Gdemami