|
Dementropy posted:Comment from the Newsweek article about Squadron 42:
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
It looks blobersian all right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
YouTube posted:So looking at this black box, right. This is where all of our answers lie unfortunately but we can still tease out something about what has happened here; and that is that whatever CIG said to CryTek wasn't as specific as "We are going to release SQ42 as a standalone game" no matter what their marketing has said. No matter what Chris Roberts has said. No matter what that page we just brought up actually described as a standalone package. They are not willing to commit to the fact that SQ42 will be separate from Star Citizen. Probably under the advice of council, because this specific claim relies on the fact that SQ42 is a different game. unfortunately for them; they have already sold SQ42 to presumably some portion of people as a separate game. Ortwinning lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
Since it seems that 2020 ain't the year I get to play the best drat single player space fighter game ever, time to start looking for alternatives I guess Is Rebel Galaxy: Outlaw any good? I was super hyped for it all summer but I plain forgot about it at release. Worth getting for my dogfight jollies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Sabreseven posted:Good grief, I think BG's grasp of legal strategy and reality is nonexistant. Only he could call a 'without predjudice dismisal' a "retreat", I'd call it more like artillery repositioning to get better arcs and politely telling the enemy to loving sit still like good cannon fodder should. Not to argue semantics of military jargon injected into legal proceedings, this can be interpreted as a "retreat". A third (and a major third that is) of the lawsuit that survived the second amended claims hinges on there being a product to scrutinize. Right now, there isn't any. If the lawsuit continues forward, that third will fail in court, leaving what I would call more minor quibbles of IP infringement of code base and lack of recompense for prior requirements. I don't think CryTek wants to leave the lawsuit to chance of the judge understanding the vagueness of what CIG may or may not do with SQ42.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Hav posted:I’m the ‘independent auditors’. This thread led me to believe all auditors were German
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 19:03
|
|
Welcome to the
|
Erenthal posted:Since it seems that 2020 ain't the year I get to play the best drat single player space fighter game ever, time to start looking for alternatives I guess It's fun enough for a budget shooter. It's not that deep, but if you wanted a modern remake of Privateer, here it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Hav posted:Edit: they should have started themselves a credit agency based entirely over spreading the cost of ships, but I suppose that’s what credit cars are for. Yeah they already do credit cars Checkmate, etcetera. *Dresses up as Q*
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:Not to argue semantics of military jargon injected into legal proceedings, this can be interpreted as a "retreat". A third (and a major third that is) of the lawsuit that survived the second amended claims hinges on there being a product to scrutinize. Right now, there isn't any. If the lawsuit continues forward, that third will fail in court, leaving what I would call more minor quibbles of IP infringement of code base and lack of recompense for prior requirements. I don't think CryTek wants to leave the lawsuit to chance of the judge understanding the vagueness of what CIG may or may not do with SQ42. Agreed, I just found it funny how BG was trying to paint it as a victory lap for CI`g with Crytek running off with their tails between their legs (which would still be funny), rather than CI`g failing to publish/finish/start the product they are being sued over because they make 'ridiculously incompetant' seem like a kind and compassionate description of their abilities and Crytek needs to wait the idiots out until the thing they are sueing them for exists.  It kinda sounds better in my head tbh.Honestly, if anyone had asked me 8 years ago if I thought any of this was going to happen, I'd have said "What? Good grief, how on Earth would something as outlandish as that happen? No company can be that dumb surely?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
Erenthal posted:Since it seems that 2020 ain't the year I get to play the best drat single player space fighter game ever, time to start looking for alternatives I guess Welcome to the best space sim ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
 Crytek: "Judge we are asking you to dismiss our own lawsuit."refund sub: "CIG is in so much trouble!!"  What's wrong with these people? A few of them have publicly admitted to having mental disorders. It's certainly a somewhat reasonable explanation for their irrational obsession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
Wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
Ghetto SuperCzar posted:Wrong thread. In the meantime, here's something to read: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337275672_The_Star_Citizen_Phenomenon_the_Ultimate_Dream_Management_Technique_in_Crowdfunding
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Zzr posted:I called it after you so my call override yours. Do either of you have multi page blogs about "calling it?" I think not!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
once they put SQ420 in Star Citizen, as it seems they legally have to, what does that mean for the whole UK tax thing? isn't that predicated on it being a different game developed by a UK company? I guess they just go "out of business"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:In the meantime, here's something to read: Dreams.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:I predict that nothing will change as far as public optics. However much Chris might prefer that, I’m not sure they can coast through 2020 without a public Squadron update of some kind. The Squadron roadmap updates have been pissing people off for months now, and too often the backer refrains are “when the hell is Chris gonna say something?” I think he’ll want to justify the certain-to-be-later-than summer beta delay rather than let a narrative be thrust upon him. (Particularly if Squadron isn’t going to beta by CitCon, which seems quite likely.) Even if Chris wishes to say nothing about Squadron to the backers, he also has three other Squadron stakeholders to worry about. Clive Calder, Crytek and possibly even the folks in Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs office. All three have an interest in the When and How of Squadron’s release. But Chris has no path forward that can satisfy all three — they‘re mutually exclusive. Calder and HMRC were told Squadron was going to be a stand-alone retail title that needed investment / British tax relief. Crytek is being told Squadron is really just part of Star Citizen, not its own separate game. During discovery, CIG lawyers conveyed that the When and How of Squadron’s release STILL aren’t decided. The When is no surprise, but the How is. How could Squadron not be a stand-alone game? It’s been marketed that way, pre-sold that way, pitched to a billionaire investor that way, and described that way to HMRC for millions in tax relief (with the official stamp of approval by the British Film Institute)? Crytek, Calder, HMRC and the backers all will be expecting to hear more from Chris about Squadron in 2020. However much he’d probably like to avoid it, Chris will have to give an official update sooner or later. The Crytek thing made me go back and check what the last big official update was. CIG didn’t say much at CitCon, and given the latest Crytek update, now we know why. It came from Erin on RTV. Sweaty, red-faced and stubbled, he looked like he was Five seconds from a heart attack (and got a lot of worried YouTube commenters about it.) It’s a really interesting watch now. Lando’s questions were surprisingly on point. It plays like they were mounting a defense against critical attacks, particularly about Squadron. The intent was no doubt to assure the backers that everything is cool and good so just ignore the noise. He reiterated that their biggest goal was pushing Squadron out as quickly as possible, and he warned that this meant Star Citizen development might be adversely impacted as resources get allocated for the single player game. Well, he was half right at least. This interview was also interesting because it was the first time CIG directly addressed a years old question, “If Squadron was in graybox in 2015, why isn’t any part in graybox now?” Erin’s answer was meant to prop up Lesnick’s ancient claim, that yes, there was an earlier, quasi-playable Squadron. If I recall correctly, Lesnick made that claim in 2015 (please correct me thread if it was 2016.) Now, we should remember that CIG told backers they’d see a vertical slice at CitCon 2016. It was supposedly pulled at the last minute, and we saw only glimpses of whatever that supposedly was in “The Road to CitizenCon.” This was, we are to believe, the fabled Squadron 1.0 right before the most transparent gaming company in history decided to scrap it without telling anyone for years and start over. So the interview really just shows how good they are at Retconning the backers. As Erin helpfully points out during the exchange, “It’s about trust, right?” Yes, we spent 2013-2016 working on something we threw away without telling you, but never fear, because now (as Erin said) things on Squadron 2.0 “are going really well.” Not long after that interview though, progress as depicted by the Squadron Roadmap froze up. It’s been stalled for over half a year now when less than half a year from now, it should be in beta. So once again, their narrative is crumbling. Things on Squadron are not “going really well.” The Beta is not coming in summer 2020. They’re not sure when it might even release, if it will release, nor do they know yet in what form it might eventually come, as a stand-alone retail title (as the backers, Calder, and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs office has been told), or maybe just as a module within their sole game release Star Citizen (as Crytek and Judge Gee have been told.) Only a savant level huckster like Chris Roberts could find himself in so fantastic a bind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Crobbers will use recent events to his benefit, he will say something like "Unfortunately, recent events prevent us from telling you what's up [crowd boos and yells "gently caress Crytek"], but rest assured we're hard at work" Citizens will say "well obviously the silence and delays were caused by the bad lawyermans!" 2021 is gonna be great!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:Not to argue semantics of military jargon injected into legal proceedings, this can be interpreted as a "retreat". A third (and a major third that is) of the lawsuit that survived the second amended claims hinges on there being a product to scrutinize. Right now, there isn't any. If the lawsuit continues forward, that third will fail in court, leaving what I would call more minor quibbles of IP infringement of code base and lack of recompense for prior requirements. I don't think CryTek wants to leave the lawsuit to chance of the judge understanding the vagueness of what CIG may or may not do with SQ42. Not sure why the product needs to be released for CIG to claim damages of some kind. The product has been (pre)sold though, and presumably CIG has paid taxes on those profits without a single fee/cut of those going to CryTek. Is it possibly because the size of the price once released is larger? MedicineHut fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jan 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
zebedy posted:once they put SQ420 in Star Citizen, as it seems they legally have to, what does that mean for the whole UK tax thing? isn't that predicated on it being a different game developed by a UK company? I guess they just go "out of business" I'm trying to parse this myself, and while it's easy to fall back on the whole "if SQ42 isn't separate from SC, it's fraud" argument, I'm trying to think of what is actually claimed and what is at risk. So the figure being thrown out is $23 million in tax breaks/credits/assistance to CIG UK in the "ongoing development of Squadron 42". This also includes tax breaks on developing a "work of art" that is representative of UK culture in some or all facets and/or being developed in UK mainland and/or by UK citizens. To the last part, you've probably noticed the trend of the UK studios getting larger and larger. I don't think that's coincidence. Being able to cite "why yes, look at all these UK people in the UK compared to everywhere else, we're in majority in the UK" is good for justifying that guideline for that tax break. For the "separate game" thing, that's a bit trickier, because there is some wiggle room. Technically, a game dev studio can apply for those same tax breaks to make DLC for an established game. And if TheAgent's sources are right, that's an intention going forward to fold SQ42 into SC, essentially a Star Citizen DLC for all practical purposes. And that slight separation of "It's not technically Star Citizen, it's SQ42, it's a DLC for Star Citizen" might float some of that requirement. The issue will probably come from "Does a DLC making game dev deserve $23 million in tax credits?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
MedicineHut posted:Not sure why the product needs to be released for CIG to claim damages of some kind. The product has been (pre)sold though, and presumably CIG has paid taxes on those profits without a single fee/cut of those going to CryTek. Could be S42 released as both a SC module/episode-based drip feed, and a standalone copy at a later date. Let's say 99% of S42 players get their content as part of SC. CIG could give Crytek 100% revenue from the 30 or so standalone copies of S42 sold. Even better, give every S42 preorder a complimentary copy of SC that S42 runs within. There's lots of ways to end up having it both ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
 ... Has this been posted yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Daztek posted:
Socs socks sucks. That’s like 2015-era cringe — I love it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Daztek posted:
quote:Please note that the image shown is a digital render. Actual product appearance may differ. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Is there anything preventing them releasing Theatres of War as a stand-alone? That's what I'm wondering. As much as the court case is still on the horizon, if they reckon they could make a pitch for it being Lumberyard only (or if they think they can keep the case at bay by just failing to release SQ42 some more...). Could it kind of square the circle for them? It feels like a Calders thing to me. Like they've identified Tracy as someone who's 'Not Chris', got him to try and blow some life into a select set of embers, and are hoping either for a product, or something the looks like enough like one that they can shift those shares?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
I am a human being, dammit! You can deny me all you want but you cannot deny Ernst Bishop. He exists. That game, that space sim, all those jpegs, they exist in here, in my mind. You can foreclose a company, but you cannot destroy an idea! Don't you understand, that's ancient knowledge. You cannot destroy an idea! That game, I created it, and it's real! Don't you understand? It is REAL! I created it and IT'S REAL!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:I'm trying to parse this myself, and while it's easy to fall back on the whole "if SQ42 isn't separate from SC, it's fraud" argument, I'm trying to think of what is actually claimed and what is at risk. It's not that simple. There are some rules, however flexible they may be in practice. Eg: When you apply for tax credits it has to be with a specific company for a specific game. The company that you apply with has to have overall responsibility for design and production. There are maximum limits on subcontractors. This seems to be based off the bbfc guidelines: https://ukie.org.uk/a2f/VGTR The cultural aspect of whether the game (Sq42) is culturally British isn't really worth thinking about it, unless the game is Star Citizen because then it becomes problematic to say the least. quote:To apply for the cultural test, there must be one video games development company (VGDC) that is registered with Companies House and within the UK corporation tax net. The VGDC must be set up before development/design work begins and have responsibility for all aspects of the video game making process from design and development through to testing and delivery. At the moment, they can skate along and no real scrutiny is being made on what they are claiming for and on the game itself, since it does not exist. However, once the game is released, they'll need to get the final certification which confirms that all those tax credits were legit. quote:If you are applying for final certification we will also require a version of the finished project and a hard copy of the accountant’s report if you are applying for points in sections C and D. That said, there's probably no appetite from anyone with responsibility to deny them since it means they hosed up somewhere along the line, 6 years ago and at this point they wouldn't get the money back which would only compound the appearance of the error so I'm sure CIG get away with this. But if you were in CIG's position which hurdle do you try first?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:I am a human being, dammit! You can deny me all you want but you cannot deny Ernst Bishop. He exists. That game, that space sim, all those jpegs, they exist in here, in my mind. You can foreclose a company, but you cannot destroy an idea! Don't you understand, that's ancient knowledge. You cannot destroy an idea! That game, I created it, and it's real! Don't you understand? It is REAL! I created it and IT'S REAL! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
Daztek posted:
const uint46 ...
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:I predict that nothing will change as far as public optics. But all this is dependent upon the money continuing to come in, right? If positive hype and belief in Roberts being able to deliver are key to more new money, what will it take to turn the hype negative? And if hype turns bad, how long can Roberts' actual history stand up to vigorous scrutiny?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
shrach posted:Eg: When you apply for tax credits it has to be with a specific company for a specific game. The company that you apply with has to have overall responsibility for design and production. Precisely. The tax credit applies to UK based companies (even though they may have subcontracts abroad). AFAIK now SQ42 is currently fully under the responsibility of Foundry 42 in the UK (which may subcontract F42 in Germany etc or whomever) so all works well. But, which of the numerous CI(G) related companies is the overall responsible for design and production of SC? A UK based one or a US based one? And more interestingly, if it is a US based one what happens to the tax credits thing if SQ42 gets integrated into SC?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:I am a human being, dammit! You can deny me all you want but you cannot deny Ernst Bishop. He exists. That game, that space sim, all those jpegs, they exist in here, in my mind. You can foreclose a company, but you cannot destroy an idea! Don't you understand, that's ancient knowledge. You cannot destroy an idea! That game, I created it, and it's real! Don't you understand? It is REAL! I created it and IT'S REAL! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
I Have No Idris And I Must Fly
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:What the gently caress is this engrish text? Gonna guess joe blobers e:f,b
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:In the meantime, here's something to read: Either that's the one I was interviewed for or there's another star citizen study in the works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
Daztek posted:
I love how even socks don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
More people are getting the missing eyes = no HUD bug. It really is a thing. Why would the eyeball assets be linked to HUD elements? Is this some legacy madness from the eaglehead tech?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
Pixelate posted:More people are getting the missing eyes = no HUD bug. It really is a thing. This is just the most Star Citizen thing, it's amazing
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
Daztek posted:
Delivery date Q2 2020* *may be subject to change, product not yet avaliable, by clicking 'BUY' you accept all the rules and conditions of a preorder of yet unexisting item
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
G0RF posted:However much Chris might prefer that, I’m not sure they can coast through 2020 without a public Squadron update of some kind. Good points, i just don't see how they can release a SQ42 of any kind. Half the stuff they need for it is is either on the roadmap and not complete or its tech that's on the SC roadmap that is not likely to get done next year, or its stuff that isn't on any roadmap yet (but most open development company ever could possibly be working on it without it being on the roadmap). But still, they could just throw all their previous marketing and bullshit out of the window and make a very limited on rails chapter 1 i suppose.... backers will do a victory lap and claim it to be the best drat game ever, while everyone else just facepalms. But really, the first part of SQ42 in whatever form is going to set expectations, and if its not that good, a lot of backers might just actually, finally, start asking some hard questions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 00:28
|
|
