Support NeoGAF

[Vashu]

It was already proven to be fake.

Most likely an alt of that clown.

Oh, I know it was proven to be a fake, it just seems like something petty that he would do at this point in time.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

It helps people exercise their rights and get refunds for non delivered products. If some stories are fake, ban those users and let CIG sue them if they want.

How is it a "non-delivered product" though? Maybe sure if I've just misunderstood what you mean by that, I'm assuming you mean the project as a whole but considering it's still in development that doesn't make sense.

Crowfunding isn't just giving money in exchange for a product. I really don't understand getting refunds for crowdfunded games games. They aren't just a game pre-order but it seems a lot of people treat it like it is (it's the same with other kickstarters as well based on comments I've read for other projects where people start asking to have their money back when someone goes wrong). You're outright told multiple times that things might not work out right and will probably change, if someone isn't willing to take that risk of delays or changes or even just having the whole project fail, don't say that you are by backing it.

Demanding refunds for a crowdfunded game that you've backed just seems like completely the wrong attitude to have towards this sort of thing to me. The whole point of crowdfunding is that you're giving them money to help try to realize an idea and that you're donating money to pay for them to work towards it, you aren't just paying for something. Having a mentality of basically "Even though I said I was fine with the possibility of this not going well, i'll just change my mind demand my money back when something doesn't go perfectly anyway!" is just absurd to me.

If you aren't really willing to take a chance with a crowdfunded project, don't say you are by giving them money in the first place.

 

[~Cross~]

How is it a "non-delivered product" though? Crowfunding isn't just giving money in exchange for a product. I really don't understand getting refunds for crowdfunded games games. They aren't just a game pre-order but it seems a lot of people treat it like it is (it's the same with other kickstarters as well based on comments I've read for other projects where people start asking to have their money back when someone goes wrong). You're outright told multiple times that things might not work out right and will probably change, if someone isn't willing to take that risk of delays or changes or even just having the whole project fail, don't say that you are by backing it.

Demanding refunds for a crowdfunded game that you've backed just seems like completely the wrong attitude to have towards this sort of thing to me. The whole point of crowdfunding is that you're giving them money to help try to realize an idea and that you're donating money to pay for them to work towards it, you aren't just paying for something. Having a mentality of basically "Even though I said I was fine with the chance that I'll getting nothing from this when i backed it, i'll just change my mind demand my money back when something doesn't go perfectly!" is just absurd to me.

If you aren't really willing to take a chance with a crowdfunded project, don't say you are by giving them money in the first place.

SC is both a product and a service. There is no denying it. They do sales, they have to charge VAT in Europe and now Australia. They are obligated to provide refunds for not delivering the product in countries that have strong consumer rights, and merely threatening them with an AG is enough to have them deliver a refund in the US, which has pretty shitty consumer laws in most states.

There is no reason to not get your money if you feel disappointed in the game, its production or practices. To not do so weakens your position as a consumer. If you are disappointed in the game, and are not getting a refund you are either lazy (me) or irrational (people wanting to possibly go down with the ship out of some space bushido belief)

 

[TheVoidDragon]

SC is both a product and a service. There is no denying it. They do sales, they have to charge VAT in Europe and now Australia. They are obligated to provide refunds for not delivering the product in countries that have strong consumer rights, and merely threatening them with an AG is enough to have them deliver a refund in the US, which has pretty shitty consumer laws in most states.

There is no reason to not get your money if you feel disappointed in the game, its production or practices. To not do so weakens your position as a consumer. If you are disappointed in the game, and are not getting a refund you are either lazy (me) or irrational (people wanting to possibly go down with the ship out of some space bushido belief)

How is there no denying it? What makes this a product that you can get a refund for at this stage? I've seen people mention that but i was under the impression that isn't how the law on refunds works. Yes, you have rights and can get a refund for faulty, broken, undelivered etc products usually, but when the product/service you're giving money for outright tells you there's a possibility it might not go right and things could change, how do you have a right to a refund still because of that?

Operating under the assumption that "Star Citizen" as a product is just the game part doesn't really make sense to me. You're not giving them money just for a game, what you're giving them money for is for them a service of "try to develop a game". The terms of the contract you entered with them when you gave them your money are for the service of trying to develop a game. The terms of what you've agreed to involved you accepting that things could go wrong, so why would they be obligated to give you a refund if it went wrong when that's part of what you accepted when you gave them money?

Like i said, viewing crowdfunding as "giving money for X" doesn't seem like the right mentality when it's really "giving money so they can try to make X". I don't see how they're doing anything that makes them obligated to give a refund when the product is being delivered as told. You can't say they're "not delivering the product" when as long as they're working still on it, that's what they're doing as that's what you've paid for. What you pledged for was for them to try to make a game, so what was agreed to with the terms you accepted is still being followed - there's no breach of contract as far as i'm aware.

Basically, as you accepted the risk things could go badly when you gave them money, what is there under refund law that means you're entitled to get a refund because of that? You can't say it's not as described when first off it's incomplete, and second this sort of thing potentially happening was part of what you of the was 'sold' to you in the first place.

There's also that, under UK law at least, you deciding you "no longer want an item" isn't a valid reason for a refund: https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds. If anything the reason of a customer "knew an item was faulty when they bought it" not being a situation where you can get a refund is closer to this than anything as you accepted the risk of it not going perfectly.

 

[LostCaress]

There's also that, under UK law at least, you deciding you "no longer want an item" isn't a valid reason for a refund: https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds. If anything the reason of a customer "knew an item was faulty when they bought it" not being a situation where you can get a refund is closer to this than anything as you accepted the risk of it not going perfectly.

That is incorrect. In online sales in the EU you can refund for no reason at all. You no longer wanting an item is only not valid if it it's a presencial sale. The link you provide actually says:

You must refund the customer within 14 days of receiving the goods back. They don’t have to provide a reason.

 

[Panajev2001a]

How is it a "non-delivered product" though? Maybe sure if I've just misunderstood what you mean by that, I'm assuming you mean the project as a whole but considering it's still in development that doesn't make sense.

Crowfunding isn't just giving money in exchange for a product. I really don't understand getting refunds for crowdfunded games games. They aren't just a game pre-order but it seems a lot of people treat it like it is (it's the same with other kickstarters as well based on comments I've read for other projects where people start asking to have their money back when someone goes wrong). You're outright told multiple times that things might not work out right and will probably change, if someone isn't willing to take that risk of delays or changes or even just having the whole project fail, don't say that you are by backing it.

Demanding refunds for a crowdfunded game that you've backed just seems like completely the wrong attitude to have towards this sort of thing to me. The whole point of crowdfunding is that you're giving them money to help try to realize an idea and that you're donating money to pay for them to work towards it, you aren't just paying for something. Having a mentality of basically "Even though I said I was fine with the possibility of this not going well, i'll just change my mind demand my money back when something doesn't go perfectly anyway!" is just absurd to me.

If you aren't really willing to take a chance with a crowdfunded project, don't say you are by giving them money in the first place.

It would be nicer if Kickstarter then worked as real funding would... you do not get the game, but a percentage of profits based on the investment you did (which is what I hate about the Oculus Kickstarter where the only investors that made a tons of cash where private investors that poured money in after the Kickstarter and earned the money Facebook later paid... all made possible by Kickstarter backers that essentially only preordered a headset).

 

[exmachina64]

It would be nicer if Kickstarter then worked as real funding would... you do not get the game, but a percentage of profits based on the investment you did (which is what I hate about the Oculus Kickstarter where the only investors that made a tons of cash where private investors that poured money in after the Kickstarter and earned the money Facebook later paid... all made possible by Kickstarter backers that essentially only preordered a headset).

You are aware the U.S. government has laws regulating that? As a random person, you can't come in off the street and become an investor. If you're an accredited investor, you can use Fig to invest in companies that are willing to work with investors. You wouldn't see much return from investing $20 anyway.

 

[Panajev2001a]

You are aware the U.S. government has laws regulating that? As a random person, you can't come in off the street and become an investor. If you're an accredited investor, you can use Fig to invest in companies that are willing to work with investors. You wouldn't see much return from investing $20 anyway.

Perhaps regulation should be reviewed, but that was a tangent not the bulk of what I actually wanted to say.
Kickstarter projects should not, IMHO, be treated as pure donations completely decoupled from the rewards aka the actual product you are paying for in advance. There is an element of trust, there is possibility of changes during a Kickstarter project’s lifetime, but at each point the backer should be able to get his or her money back.

(Some people put more than $20... and if the product gets sold for a few billion dollars you still see something )

 

[TheVoidDragon]

That is incorrect. In online sales in the EU you can refund for no reason at all. You no longer wanting an item is only not valid if it it's a presencial sale. The link you provide actually says:

You must refund the customer within 14 days of receiving the goods back. They don't have to provide a reason.

Having actually read some of what the UK and EU law says about online refunds, no, you're incorrect. That isn't a "you can refund no matter what happens!" situation. The "refund within 14 days" is referring to a customers "right to cancel" with online products, but that has its own limitations - again, that's not just a "refund no matter what" situation.

What the "right to cancel" actually refers to is that customers are allowed to change their mind on a purchase if it hasn't been provided to them already. Your "right to cancel" is invalidated the moment the service is started to be provided to you, which in the case of digital products like this, would be the activation of any keys/you getting access to things.

As an example, that's why Steam at one point told you when you purchased something that your right to withdraw/cancel would disappear the moment you made the purchase, because on the activation of the game key their end of the contract is fulfilled and you are they have no legal obligation to provide a refund.

Here's what the EU law actually says about digital purchases:

For such contracts, the consumer should have a right of withdrawal unless he has consented to the beginning of the performance of the contract during the withdrawal period and has acknowledged that he will consequently lose the right to withdraw from the contract.

Here's a full post i wrote about it a while ago: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=237047844&postcount=402

Quotes from that post that outline what UK/EU law actually says:

"i) Provision of digital content prior to expiry of the cancellation period. Possibly the most controversial requirement of the Directive is that the provider must obtain the consumer's express consent before making purchased digital content available to the consumer during the 14-day cancellation period by way of download or stream, together with an acknowledgement from the consumer that they will lose their cancellation right once they start to access the content. Providers have been concerned that such language may be intimidating to consumers and may lead to a negative effect on sales and conversion. "

Please note that you may not use goods that you have received before deciding to withdraw from the purchase. The right to withdraw exists to allow you to examine the product in the same way as you would in a shop, not to give you 14 days free use.

In the EU you have the right to return these purchases within 14 days for a full refund. You can do so for any reason – even if you simply changed your mind.

The 14-day "cooling off" period does not apply, among others, to:

online digital content, if you have already started downloading or streaming it

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

So no, you are not obligated to receive a refund with this sort of thing.

 

[dumbo]

Having actually read some of what the UK and EU law says about online refunds, no, you're incorrect. That isn't a "you can refund no matter what happens!" situation. The "refund within 14 days" is referring to a customers "right to cancel" with online products, but that has its own limitations - again, that's not just a "refund no matter what" situation.

What the "right to cancel" actually refers to is that customers are allowed to change their mind on a purchase if it hasn't been provided to them already. Your "right to cancel" is invalidated the moment the service is started to be provided to you, which in the case of digital products like this, would be the activation of any keys/you getting access to things.

If you buy a house, and the housebuilder ships you a fancy welcome card, do you lose the right to claim a refund for the house?

AFAIR, if you do not deliver the full product then the customer has the right to a refund.

 

[Pepboy]

Having actually read some of what the UK and EU law says about online refunds, no, you're incorrect. That isn't a "you can refund no matter what happens!" situation. The "refund within 14 days" is referring to a customers "right to cancel" with online products, but that has its own limitations - again, that's not just a "refund no matter what" situation.

What the "right to cancel" actually refers to is that customers are allowed to change their mind on a purchase if it hasn't been provided to them already. Your "right to cancel" is invalidated the moment the service is started to be provided to you, which in the case of digital products like this, would be the activation of any keys/you getting access to things.

As an example, that's why Steam at one point told you when you purchased something that your right to withdraw/cancel would disappear the moment you made the purchase, because on the activation of the game key their end of the contract is fulfilled and you are they have no legal obligation to provide a refund.

Here's what the EU law actually says about digital purchases:



Here's a full post i wrote about it a while ago: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=237047844&postcount=402

Quotes from that post that outline what UK/EU law actually says:






http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

So no, you are not obligated to receive a refund with this sort of thing.

Except most of the purchase is tied to a digital ship. Many of the ships are not yet in the game in any format, most don't have any files in the game.

Therefore you would indeed be legally allowed to file for a return in the 14 day window.

But the whole point is moot. Regardless of what we feel is legally possible, the company is still offering refunds. If you feel you want a refund for any reason, CIG is okay with it. They're already approving it, for now. So since they approve of it, no one should feel guilt or shame for wanting and applying for refunds. There are also a ton of changes in circumstances, like losing jobs, having kids, health issues, new games that are more exciting, lack of trust, that would indeed be reasonable excuses for selling or retracting a financial investment.

Indeed, I would probably recommend it as things may look like they'll get a lot worse before it might get better. I wouldn't count out a "run on the bank" situation if there were some truly bad news released. At that point you probably won't be able to get much if anything back.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

Except most of the purchase is tied to a digital ship. Many of the ships are not yet in the game in any format, most don't have any files in the game.

Therefore you would indeed be legally allowed to file for a return in the 14 day window.

But the whole point is moot. Regardless of what we feel is legally possible, the company is still offering refunds. If you feel you want a refund for any reason, CIG is okay with it. They're already approving it, for now. So since they approve of it, no one should feel guilt or shame for wanting and applying for refunds. There are also a ton of changes in circumstances, like losing jobs, having kids, health issues, new games that are more exciting, lack of trust, that would indeed be reasonable excuses for selling or retracting a financial investment.

Indeed, I would probably recommend it as things may look like they'll get a lot worse before it might get better. I wouldn't count out a "run on the bank" situation if there were some truly bad news released. At that point you probably won't be able to get much if anything back.

It's fairly irrelevant whether you have your ship or not as the provision of the services has already begun. You've started to access the content and therefore have no right for a refund anymore.

Regardless my point originally was that treating Crowdfunding like it's just a pre-order rather than actually taking into account you're outright told it could go wrong and shouldn't back it if you aren't alright with that is the completely wrong stance to take. If you aren't happy with that, don't back it in the first place.

 

[LostCaress]

Having actually read some of what the UK and EU law says about online refunds, no, you're incorrect. That isn't a "you can refund no matter what happens!" situation. The "refund within 14 days" is referring to a customers "right to cancel" with online products, but that has its own limitations - again, that's not just a "refund no matter what" situation.
contract is fulfilled and you are they have no legal obligation to provide a refund.

Here's what the EU law actually says about digital purchases:



Here's a full post i wrote about it a while ago: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=237047844&postcount=402

Quotes from that post that outline what UK/EU law actually says:






http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

So no, you are not obligated to receive a refund with this sort of thing.

You are wrong. Your own sites you are linking to says:

If you bought a good or a service online or outside of a shop (by telephone, mail order, from a door-to-door salesperson), you also have the right to cancel and return your order within 14 days, for any reason and with no justification.

The rule :

If you purchase digital content - such as music or a video online - you cannot withdraw once downloading or streaming has started, if you have given your consent and acknowledged that you will forfeit your right of withdrawal once the performance has started.

Would apply if the game was delivered. Is the game finished? Is it possible to download the full game you have purchased right now?

It's fairly irrelevant whether you have your ship or not as the provision of the services has already begun. You've started to access the content and therefore have no right for a refund anymore.

Regardless my point originally was that treating Crowdfunding like it's just a pre-order rather than actually taking into account you're outright told it could go wrong and shouldn't back it if you aren't alright with that is the completely wrong stance to take. If you aren't happy with that, don't back it in the first place.

So if I sell you ship X but then you download a demo for the game, you cannot refund because you already downloaded a demo?

It's 100% not irrelevant whether or not you have your ship, under the conditions that were sold, because that's exactly the point of purchasing / returning an item.

 

[Pepboy]

It's fairly irrelevant whether you have your ship or not as the provision of the services has already begun. You've started to access the content and therefore have no right for a refund anymore.

Regardless my point originally was that treating Crowdfunding like it's just a pre-order rather than actually taking into account you're outright told it could go wrong and shouldn't back it if you aren't alright with that is the completely wrong stance to take. If you aren't happy with that, don't back it in the first place.

That's incorrect. You did not access the content purchased, specifically the ship. You didn't even download it.

Hell even if it was a ship that is currently in the game, you would still have legal backing to claim you have not accessed it. Why? Because the ship does not yet work as advertised. You can't swap modules to my knowledge, can't mine, etc. You did not access the content as it was advertised.

I find your view on crowdfunding is just one opinion. And frankly I feel it is somewhat naive. It's not some unconditional donation. If they had run off with the money, they would in theory be obligated to fulfill it. There are always risks, but there are risks to most activities.

If you get hired, warned there may be some risks, and hurt on the job, in many countries you still get worker's compensation. Just telling people there is risk does not negate the legal responsibility of said risk. Especially, especially, if there might be evidence of negligence, which there is certainly a case for with CIG.

 

[Raticus79]

Here's a link to the mission system part of the AtV (starts at 10:23):
https://youtu.be/FhywXu8vsuM?t=623

As mentioned earlier, they do talk about things moving along faster with gameplay systems now that the AI foundation's in place with 3.0.

 

[~Cross~]

It's fairly irrelevant whether you have your ship or not as the provision of the services has already begun. You've started to access the content and therefore have no right for a refund anymore.

Regardless my point originally was that treating Crowdfunding like it's just a pre-order rather than actually taking into account you're outright told it could go wrong and shouldn't back it if you aren't alright with that is the completely wrong stance to take. If you aren't happy with that, don't back it in the first place.

Kickstarter themselves mention that failing a kickstarter does not give users any form of defense against possible litigation. And there has been plenty of litigation in the past, even from people that explicitly thought kickstarter was a regular e-commerce site, that have gone through courts and ruled favorably to the consumer. Hell, I remember reading about a crowdfunding lawsuit that ruled favorably to the plaintiff because the crowdsourcing happen mostly out of traditional crowdsourcing sites. An AG looking at CIGs site will think its just a normal commerce site, with a shopping cart, sales, charging taxes. They'll laugh off the ToS and any fine script trying to absolve the company from any wrong doing.

Also, the mental gymnastics required to believe that SC is not enough of a game yet to criticize (Because its in alpha, nothing is finalized, etc) while simultaneously being enough of a game to deny refunds for is mind boggling. You cant have it both ways.

SC right now is more of a tech demo than an actual demonstration of a near finalized game. People would be up in arms in these forums if a company like Ubisoft/Activision/EA decided to deny a refund to someone because they preordered a game, got into a closed alpha for it and then the consumer decided to cancel the pre-order. I'm pretty sure a closed alpha for a game from those publishers would be eons more complete than what SC is right now as well.


e-Anyways out of refund chat. They posted the schedule report and had a massive decrease in issues needed to be fixed prior to a closed alpha test. Mostly by redefining what those issues were so that they didn't fit into the "Gotta keep delaying this till they are fixed" category. Who the fuck thought that things like texture bugs and light sources not showing up properly were showstoppers in the first place? Just fucking get this out to the door ASAP, people haven't gotten a proper content update for this in nearly a year

 

[Pepboy]

Kickstarter themselves mention that failing a kickstarter does not give users any form of defense against possible litigation. And there has been plenty of litigation in the past, even from people that explicitly thought kickstarter was a regular e-commerce site, that have gone through courts and ruled favorably to the consumer. Hell, I remember reading about a crowdfunding lawsuit that ruled favorably to the plaintiff because the crowdsourcing happen mostly out of traditional crowdsourcing sites. An AG looking at CIGs site will think its just a normal commerce site, with a shopping cart, sales, charging taxes. They'll laugh off the ToS and any fine script trying to absolve the company from any wrong doing.

Also, the mental gymnastics required to believe that SC is not enough of a game yet to criticize (Because its in alpha, nothing is finalized, etc) while simultaneously being enough of a game to deny refunds for is mind boggling. You cant have it both ways.

SC right now is more of a tech demo than an actual demonstration of a near finalized game. People would be up in arms in these forums if a company like Ubisoft/Activision/EA decided to deny a refund to someone because they preordered a game, got into a closed alpha for it and then the consumer decided to cancel the pre-order. I'm pretty sure a closed alpha for a game from those publishers would be eons more complete than what SC is right now as well.


e-Anyways out of refund chat. They posted the schedule report and had a massive decrease in issues needed to be fixed prior to a closed alpha test. Mostly by redefining what those issues were so that they didn't fit into the "Gotta keep delaying this till they are fixed" category. Who the fuck thought that things like texture bugs and light sources not showing up properly were showstoppers in the first place? Just fucking get this out to the door ASAP, people haven't gotten a proper content update for this in nearly a year

Regarding the "decrease" in issues -- my guess is the news story about 45k being refunded (even if fake) caused a scare internally about a bank run. They probably did see an uptick in return requests. So they start to actually feel like their feet are close to the fire and just to get this thing out the door. The only thing that doesn't fit this story is that they show the downtick on the 9/11 not 9/15. But I don't doubt they'd fudge the timing a bit since they only update the chart once a week.

 

[~Cross~]

Nah, they had already hinted about it in the previous schedule report. They mentioned about how they were going to decide what the first group of testers was actually going to be testing. Thats clear wordage that they were reigning scope in, they just applied it to bugs as well.

I dont think any sort of refund chain reaction would cause this sort of shift in priorities. Its far more likely that the average money they were pulling every week post Gamescom just wasn't what they were expecting and fully understand that they NEED to get an update out soon. Narrative about taking their time and getting things right be damned, they know that they need an uptick in sales if they want to keep operating at 400+ plus.

But if a fake 45k refund COULD trigger that sort of reaction, I wonder how people would react if they found out that a VC with way more money than that decided to pull out and get his money back after years of not seeing any ROI.

 

[iHaunter]

Oh, I know it was proven to be a fake, it just seems like something petty that he would do at this point in time.

He also has fake reddit accounts too. I think OldSchoolCmdr is one of them.

I agree, it's quite pathetic lol.

 

[RadioactiveLobster]

I feel like some of the comments in the latest ATV in the mission section were some direct shots at Elite Dangerous and it's mission design.

That said, at least I can play Elite Dangerous right now...

 

[Spuck-uk]

It will be interesting to see how fast updates come out after 3.0. its been claimed that even with the delays other content is still getting work on, if thats the case 3.1 should come out quickly

I would imagine, considering the track record, that 3.1 will be hugely delayed, as every single update has been hugely delayed.

 

[FreezerGeezer]

Yeah no way 3.1 will be anytime soon after 3.0. Those releases were sizable chunks by themselves and now they have systems and items from 3.0 pushed back into them.

Looking forward to Avacado release of 3.0.

 

[TVexperto]

So I just watched my friend play SC after me being personally disappointed playing the Gamescom demo at the gamescom booth.

I now want to pledge a bit of money.

Can somebody give me a detailed summary of whats to come in the 3.0 patch in October? I only find some bits and pieces of information on some gaming news sites.

appreciate it!

 

[Vashu]

So I just watched my friend play SC after me being personally disappointed playing the Gamescom demo at the gamescom booth.

I now want to pledge a bit of money.

Can somebody give me a detailed summary of whats to come in the 3.0 patch in October? I only find some bits and pieces of information on some gaming news sites.

appreciate it!

This should be most of the stuff coming for 3.0.

Planetary Landings, new planetoid with mission givers and more, handling items and cargo.

Star Citizen Alpha 3.0.0

Forgot the url XD

 

[~Cross~]

It will be interesting to see how fast updates come out after 3.0. its been claimed that even with the delays other content is still getting work on, if thats the case 3.1 should come out quickly

Yeah, just ask any of the staff how much real work has been put into mining, refining and manufacturing. Like a hard % of how much is done on these features that are supposed to be the cornerstones of 3.1.

You wont find them listed in the schedule report, you wont find them in the big "Year long" schedule image. Just common sense tells you that something so engineering heavy is being put aside while they try to get 3.0 ready for release. They probably are all hands on deck trying to push it out by October. November at the latest. They seriously will not crunch through the holidays like last year if they have 3.0 out already by then, they might do a few bug fixes, adding things that they cut from the original release, etc.

Its surprising how like 2.6s release 3.0 is shaping up to be. Except that the extra difficulty in pushing it out scales linearly (at the very least) with the actual complexity of the patch. The idea that "The ground work is done, things should be coming out faster now" has proven consistently wrong with each patch.

 

[Burny]

"The ground work is done, things should be coming out faster now" has proven consistently wrong with each patch.

It's also always been an purely delusional notion for Star Citizen.

"The ground work" for a quasi MMO sandbox thingy complete with modeled star systems down to planet surfaces (no matter whether landing zones or whole proc'gen' planets), trading, fighting, mining, combat from on foot shooting to large scale (capital) ship battles fielded by player organization and a civil passenger systems, several alien species, ground sandworm boss battles...

Anyway, the "groundwork" for a game with five years of backer fund fueled feature creep is not having 12 players in an instance, getting in and out of a ship (clipping included), shooting at each other with small arms and moving between two or three stations. It's also not having a poor man's two map arena shooter mode, an abandoned wannabe ship racing mode and an isolated ship battle arena mode. And certainly not modeling ship interiors down to the kitchen sink, while redoing some models over from the ground. Not to forget the mouth watering 30 second clips of cool stuff that's heavily implied to be part of the game, but has yet to make an appearance in any of their released alphas. All those are tech demos in relation to their scope.

The "ground work" is getting whatever number of players per instance they're aiming at into the most basic of boxy dummy levels (stations, asteroid rings, planets, whatever scope they're aiming at) playing reliably together. As nothing more than grey boxes shooting colored blobs, having no elaborate flight model whatsoever. If they cannot get that to work and they certainly haven't shown any such prototype, they're in over their heads.

What do I know though? I don't know how game development works after all. Only that in anything that anybody builds, it's not the shiny outer bits that come first, but the foundations to support all that. Who knows? Maybe it's been opposite day in CIG for five years now.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

here's hoping.

 

[Spuck-uk]

At this point there isn't even a coherent flight model, as evidenced by the Gamecom demo.

You would think that would be the first thing you nail down, in a spaceflight based game.

 

[Burny]

Interesting, if quite verbose reflection of a refunded/ing 7305$ backer (without grey market). ( "Right?")

Can't say I disagree with anything they say. Except for the time where they started getting uncomfortable with Star Citizen. The red flags where flying all over 2015 when "Star Marine" was quitely delayed only to be "weeks not months away", while Star Citizen put a 400$ price tag on a civil passenger transport ship that required mechanics and tech that wasn't even close to on the Horizon and blew scope for the mechanic out of any reasonable proportions up to the bloody cocktail mixing minigame.

I really can't speak for anything earlier than 2015, because I only backed and started to follow the game at the end of 2014. My refund's been a lot less whale-y than theirs however.

 

[Eolz]

At this point there isn't even a coherent flight model, as evidenced by the Gamecom demo.

You would think that would be the first thing you nail down, in a spaceflight based game.

There is a coherent flight model.
Unless you're looking for a different adjective, aka a more subjective one.

 

[Skade]

Yeah, the flight model is quite decent actually. Might not be everyone's taste, but at the very least, i like it (or liked, been a few patches since i last played).

The main problem in this gamescom demo seems to be that the pilots weren't really good and did not seem to use the corrects options when they should have. Like the precision mode for instance.

Take a look at the very first 3.0 demo (last year gamescom), the Freelancer pilot was rather good in this one. And thus, the flying did not look like shit.

I mean... If you see your grand-dad playing Doom, the gameplay will probably not look very fun nor fluid.

 

[kmag]

There is a coherent flight model.
Unless you're looking for a different adjective, aka a more subjective one.

I think he's meaning the atmospheric flight model and there's some truth in that.

The actual space flight model is still pants, still far too much strafe jousting, and while it's not flight model related they've not resolved the gimballed weapons in a satisfactory way

 

[iHaunter]

I think he's meaning the atmospheric flight model and there's some truth in that.

The actual space flight model is still pants, still far too much strafe jousting, and while it's not flight model related they've not resolved the gimballed weapons in a satisfactory way

People can't realistically expect two perfect flight models, especially when there's so much transitioning, especially with gravity.

It's polish, I'm not worried about it.

Core tech and game mechanics are far more important. Like the jarring jank animations and falling through ships. They can take a year to improve the flight model, I'd rather it be fun to play in first person at the moment.

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

I think he's meaning the atmospheric flight model and there's some truth in that.

The actual space flight model is still pants, still far too much strafe jousting, and while it's not flight model related they've not resolved the gimballed weapons in a satisfactory way

Atmospheric flight is definitely not where I want it but it's early days with that. The space flight is another matter. To be honest I don't really even know what I want from it. I feel it's too snappy now and actually kind of preferred it when it was a bit more drifty.

Thinking about it perhaps momentum is actually my complaint. The feel of being able to stop and start on a dime is pretty jarring to me tbh.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

People can't realistically expect two perfect flight models, especially when there's so much transitioning, especially with gravity.

It's polish, I'm not worried about it.

Core tech and game mechanics are far more important. Like the jarring jank animations and falling through ships. They can take a year to improve the flight model, I'd rather it be fun to play in first person at the moment.

1st bolded- A good base flight model wouldn't need much adjusting. The core differences between atmospheric and space flight are pretty straight forward. First is that the horizon is defined, second atmospheric resistance, third is gravitational pull. You wouldn't need to change it, just alter the forces acting on the ship.

2nd bolded- The flight model and dynamics are the very core of the game. It's how players will spend most of their time interacting with the game world. It's the #1 way players will traverse the game world, interact with other players, and work hardest to acquire and customize. Getting that right or wrong (as it currently is) will make or break the game and the define the longevity of it.

 

[iHaunter]

1st bolded- A good base flight model wouldn't need much adjusting. The core differences between atmospheric and space flight are pretty straight forward. First is that the horizon is defined, second atmospheric resistance, third is gravitational pull. You wouldn't need to change it, just alter the forces acting on the ship.

2nd bolded- The flight model and dynamics are the very core of the game. It's how players will spend most of their time interacting with the game world. It's the #1 players will traverse the game world, interact with other players, and work hardest to acquire and customize. Getting that right or wrong (as it currently is) will make or break the game and the define the longevity of it.

I'm not saying they're not important, I'm saying it's good enough for now and needs some polish.

While the jarring and terrible animation transitions are a much bigger problem, at least for me.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I feel like some of the comments in the latest ATV in the mission section were some direct shots at Elite Dangerous and it's mission design.

That said, at least I can play Elite Dangerous right now...

What are you talking about? delusional much.

 

[RadioactiveLobster]

What are you talking about? delusional much.

Then I should fit right in with most of the people in this thread as that seems to be rather common among SC backers.

 

[Jeremy]

This seems to be a known issue and I probably didn't do the research I should have but what's the best method of uninstalling the game? The uninstall.exe deleted the launcher and the uninstall.exe but left all the other game data.

 

[exmachina64]

This seems to be a known issue and I probably didn't do the research I should have but what's the best method of uninstalling the game? The uninstall.exe deleted the launcher and the uninstall.exe but left all the other game data.

If you know the folder it’s in, just delete it.

 

[Pepboy]

I was surprised to see them down to so few bugs in the last progress report. I know the initial rush was simply recategorizing most of the bugs as no longer "must fix" before release, but being down to 5 is still interesting. I'm curious how buggy it will be at launch / after evocati.

I originally thought we wouldn't see 3.0 before 2018 but I may have to eat crow if it releases in a not-super-buggy state.

 

[Danthrax]

I was surprised to see them down to so few bugs in the last progress report. I know the initial rush was simply recategorizing most of the bugs as no longer "must fix" before release, but being down to 5 is still interesting. I'm curious how buggy it will be at launch / after evocati.

I originally thought we wouldn't see 3.0 before 2018 but I may have to eat crow if it releases in a not-super-buggy state.

Oh it'll probably be buggy as hell, haha. It just won't have a bunch of crashes and game-breaking things like essential doors not opening.


*Hopefully

 

[FieryBalrog]

Chris Roberts says the current build crashes every 5-10 minutes for 5-6 people in an instance, and says the amount of crashing increases with the number of people in an instance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6y541vKLcY#t=707s

Seriously

 

[frontieruk]

Chris Roberts says the current build crashes every 5-10 minutes for 5-6 people in an instance, and says the amount of crashing increases with the number of people in an instance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6y541vKLcY#t=707s

Seriously

Its fine 4.0 will fix all the 3.0 bugs that didn't exist in 2.6

 

[FreezerGeezer]

3.0 first group of public testing is out. Enjoy Avacados.

 

[Geist-]

Coolio. As usual, regretting not putting in the time to get Evocati status.

 

[gnomed]

So how long between Evocati testing before it's been on the PTU? I've just downloaded 2.6 recently.

 

[kutthoat5150]

Guessing 1 month before its on PTU with all the new bugs they'll find. Does anybody have patch notes?

 

[Aztechnology]

Coolio. As usual, regretting not putting in the time to get Evocati status.

What does that entail?

 

[gnomed]

Guessing 1 month before its on PTU with all the new bugs they'll find. Does anybody have patch notes?

Thanks. Guess I'll fiddle with 2.6 in the meantime.