|
Ground flooring this poo poo, now is my chance to be a top poster
|
# ¿ Dec 2, 2016 15:37 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:21 |
|
I'll go back through the old thread and scrape my songs when I'm on a computer
|
# ¿ Dec 2, 2016 15:39 |
|
postin' on historic Hitler page
|
# ¿ Dec 12, 2016 04:00 |
|
Khanstant posted:is this game still a hilarious joke or just a lovely game taking forever to come out? Yes
|
# ¿ Dec 12, 2016 04:19 |
|
INRI hurry up man you better get in on this page
|
# ¿ Dec 12, 2016 04:39 |
|
Elite's biggest, most critical flaw is not letting players interact in any way except to shoot one another, more or less. If Elite implemented the ability to trade money, goods, or ships directly from player to player, or even indirectly somehow, in a way that wasn't "dump cargo and scoop it up," it would change the game in huge ways and would stop being such a boring snoozefest.
|
# ¿ Aug 17, 2017 15:30 |
|
ManofManyAliases posted:Ahem. I dunno dude you're pretty inconsistent, really depends on whose shift it is tbqh
|
# ¿ Aug 17, 2017 18:06 |
|
Hope somebody other than CIG was responsible for installing that door, otherwise I'm thinking major fire code violations
|
# ¿ Aug 20, 2017 23:22 |
|
Mr.Tophat posted:EVE is one of the few things that makes me patriotic. Godspeed goons in space. Same. Played in 2007 and a decade later I still swell with pride for our space comrades. Pubbies ruining the culture tho
|
# ¿ Sep 14, 2017 21:11 |
|
At first, it crashes But Mako ramp suicide Is the money shot
|
# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 02:25 |
|
New technology Never before done in games Live action parp face
|
# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 02:26 |
|
Roflan posted:So MMOs are a dead genre, then? Pretty depressing, since it's my favorite even with its many, many... many problems. A lot of times in reckon my fondness for the genre comes more from nostalgia for Ultima Online than for anything mechanical. I mean it is super nice being able to single out a guy and wook the hell out of him, and it's nice having persistent game worlds where doing that is possible, and it's especially nice when you can troll hard like when like 300 people would create level one lumberjacks and go on murder sprees. But yeah it's been a long time since anyone has even pitched that kind of game to my knowledge.
|
# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 16:47 |
|
XK posted:You only really need a discord to do bridge commander, Reminder that Star Citizen's initial launch date target predates Discord.
|
# ¿ Sep 25, 2017 03:24 |
|
AlbieQuirky posted:There are at least four Derek Smarts in the US, according to the ten-second Intelius search I could be bothered to do. Star Citizens are terrible at searching the Internet. There are like 40 Derek Smarts in this thread alone, Derek.
|
# ¿ Sep 25, 2017 09:14 |
|
Tokamak posted:
Guessing that they reduced scope until there were 0 bugs, showed it to Chris, and he asked "but what about [some idiot poo poo]???" and they said "you moved it to 3.1 so we could release this on time" and he said "no I really want that now, since you're not working on anything now that this is ready, put those things back in!!!" and suddenly it's 5 critical blockers again. Next week's meeting will go "but I thought you were ready for launch last week?"
|
# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 06:21 |
|
Gosts posted:If you were to lock all the staff currently working on star citizen in any way, shape or form into a contained location, how long would it take for them to complete the game? (All features included) What would be the status of their skeletons? What kind of electricity would be used to motivate them? These are important considerations.
|
# ¿ Oct 9, 2017 12:19 |
|
Virtual Captain posted:In the last 6 years, RSI has infected four offices, which it has united into one nonstop agile waterfall, CIG. RSI has origins from the Kickstarter Sham in which a bunch of hopefuls and has-beens rode the nostalgia train to riches. All studios except for RSI swore reasonable development time upon their citizens. There are no exit doors in an RSI studio, and all communication with the outside world has been cut off and drinking coffee has been made illegal without undergoing painful medical verification methods, in which arteries are severed without pain resistant, operated entirely by machines. The way they work claim to be the most hygenic and healthy way possible, but these machines often rub against pain points, causing great deals of pain to the developers and artists. The heart is then extracted from the body and placed into a espresso machine. Various energy centers are also dissected and replaced with donuts and garage door openers. After the painful, 2 week surgical procedure, patients will then have to use a fused guidance tool, which pumps anti-aging serum into the body every 2 hours. The pain they have caused is so bad, the victim would freeze in a tense position. They would then collapse afterwards. Quoted for sickening and terrible truth
|
# ¿ Oct 9, 2017 14:15 |
|
Posting on it all day sex number page. I have no other news.
|
# ¿ Oct 16, 2017 01:56 |
|
kw0134 posted:But you don't understand, I want to be able to walk the distance from Dutch Harbor in Alaska to Tierro del Feugo in Argentina without loading screens and paaaaaarrrpppp You can't even do this in real life. What is sleep if not a loading screen?
|
# ¿ Dec 23, 2017 23:53 |
|
Really the most interesting thing out of all of this is going to be the precedent set for whether or not changing the vector of usage of a piece of software constitutes changing software. CIG made their stuff in CryEngine and don't contest it. CIG "spent less than one day" porting those things to Lumberyard, meaning CIG still has substantial amounts of code written in CryEngine in there, but Lumberyard is substantially the same as CryEngine (even down to copyright notices) So, if I write a document in Microsoft Word, then open it in Corel WordPerfect, and add one line - was the document written in WordPerfect or Word? One could argue that because the most recent save was in WordPerfect, the whole document was written in it, but that denies the material reality and all the saved history of it in Word. If I sign a contract permitting me to use Software X, and then I use Software X to develop a game, can I switch to Software Y, a kang of Software X that is substantially identical but owned by another company, and claim that none of my code uses Software X? What if Software Y's commented copyright notices explicitly state it's identical to Software X? I legit don't know if there is legal precedent for this question yet, but I am far more interested in what legal precedent will be cited or established than I am in the specific outcome in this case. It seems dubious to me that a software port from one engine to another distribution channel of effectively the same engine means I get to claim that none of the original code is based on the original engine.
|
# ¿ Jan 8, 2018 15:16 |
|
SomethingJones posted:No I think, unfortunately, it's not so clear. This is what our plain reading of it tells us, but our plain reading is based on our already preconceived understanding. That CIG is arguing "you have to use the plain meaning of words, not the legal understanding" is in fact shooting themselves in the foot, because Derek linked a legal definition to something a few days ago that actually, by my reading, fell in line more with CIG's argument than Crytek's. The thing is, words and grammar do have meaning and common meaning, but the difference between a lawyer and a linguist-with-an-opinion is that the lawyer understands the context of how those meanings are traditionally interpreted when those phrases arise in legal documents, which is different sometimes than the common use, or sometimes narrows down what is ultimately kind of ambiguous. In the example of "exclusively use" in particular, CIG's argument is not what people keep thinking they're arguing. I "fell for it" at first, but thinking about it more, I understand. The argument CIG is making is that the license is a "license to use CryEngine to produce Star Citizen," and that that license is exclusive to CIG. (Even here we can see how ambiguous this word is, because "exclusive to CIG" can mean both "excludes CIG" or "CIG only, excluding all else"). And, I think that's compelling. I think that's probably pretty boilerplate language. It's saying "a product is being made, called Star Citizen, and we, Crytek, are granting CIG and CIG only the license to use CryEngine for the purpose of making that game. If Microsoft wants to make the game Star Citizen, they do not have the right to use CryEngine." Such language would both protect CIG from competition, and protect CryTek from their IP being passed unwittingly to another company when CIG goes "eh, gently caress it, nevermind" and sells Star Citizen's production rights to Ubisoft or whoever. Where it's tricky, in the "plain language" thing, is that it doesn't say "Crytek grants Licensee the exclusive right to use CryEngine in the production of the Game." It says "to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game..." And that's a radically different statement. Now, the question is, does that mean "Licensee and Licensee only can embed CryEngine in the Game..." or does it mean "Licensee can embed CryEngine and CryEngine alone in the Game..." We can break this down to grammar, but it's still not clear. "Exclusively" here, at a grammatical, pedantic, "let's diagram a sentence" level that I haven't encountered since college, does modify "embed," straight up. It can't modify the "grants" in "Licensee grants" because of the split infinitive in "to embed". For the theory "Licensee exclusively can embed..." to hold muster, the sentence would have to read "Crytek grants Licensee exclusively the right to embed CryEngine in the game..." (edit: and on a second reading, actually even this is ambiguous - is the right exclusive to the License, or is the right being granted what is exclusive, i.e., there are no other rights being granted?) or "Crytek exclusively grants Licensee the right..." But it reads "to exclusively embed CryEngine..." Still, there's ambiguity there. To my reading, that "exclusively" is modifying the verb's interaction with "Licensee," not the verb's interaction with "CryEngine." Word order in English is difficult because you can generally put an adverb anywhere, especially a flavor adverb, and its meaning still has to be derived from context. Technically, the word "exclusively" doesn't need to be there at all. It's like "true and correct copy." There are no false and correct copies or true and incorrect copies, so you can just say "copy," but lawyers throw "true and correct" in there all the time. The inclusion of the word "exclusively" here muddies the waters a bit because obviously a licensing contract only grants the license to parties involved. We can derive some context, though, from the "non-exclusively" granted right in the paragraph before, and again this seems, to me, to favor CIG's interpretation of it. The license to embed CryEngine in the Game is exclusive, as in, only CIG has that permission, whereas the right to "develop, support, maintain, extend, and/or enhance CryEngine" is "non-exclusive," as in not only CIG has that right. But in either case, contrary-wise to what the plain-language reading of it is, there is a conventional meaning within this legal context, I am sure, with which for example Leonard French is familiar and with which I am not (and the existence of which makes CIG's appeal to plain language interpretation loving baffling). So I'm not 100% sold on the theory that the "exclusive" here means what we're holding it means. "exclusively" modifies "embed" but whether it modifies it by way of the subject or the object or the direct object is ambiguous because English doesn't have grammatical structures to indicate that and is, ultimately, a fairly ambiguous language. Which is why we have contract lawyers in the first place, and why there's the stereotypical reputation of lawyers being sleazy and using weasel language and so on. All this is not to say "no CIG's interpretation is ironclad like the TOS," but rather "I don't think it's completely an insane theory and it makes us look ourselves a bit unreasonable when we assert that it is." There is some ambiguity here. It absolutely can be interpreted both ways by a reasonable person. Gonna be real interesting to see this resolve out either way. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jan 8, 2018 |
# ¿ Jan 8, 2018 15:46 |
|
Thinking about it a bit more, I'd be shocked if the word "exclusively" didn't fall between "to" and "embed" specifically and intentionally to prevent it from being interpreted as modifying "grants" from the pre-colon phrase. The sentence is actually less ambiguous than it could be, if it fell outside the infinitive.Toops posted:Skimmed the thread and every page is the intolerable, unintelligible musings of non lawyers, pondering the nature of the origin of the meaning of the word meaning. Yeah I mean at the end of the day, it is specialist language being used in specialist context, and the plain-language arguments of armchair-linguists aren't really going to provide the insight we need, but I mean, whither the wind blows. Gonna be a fun trial.
|
# ¿ Jan 8, 2018 15:57 |
|
ManofManyAliases posted:If they are utilizing LY, and Amazon purchased a full license and right to sub license from CryTek, how is that a competing engine? I read that as UE4, Unity, etc... My dude, if Lumberyard is the same engine, then they are still bound by the original agreement, because they're still using CryEngine. If Lumberyard is not the same engine, then it is a competing engine. If they are licensing CryEngine from another party, such that CryEngine is being cut out, that is competition, is it not?
|
# ¿ Jan 12, 2018 20:56 |
|
|
# ¿ May 28, 2018 04:33 |
|
Well, this is bold. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSopyK83iuY
|
# ¿ Jun 9, 2018 19:44 |
|
My favorite part is how in space you kind of hover 3 inches above your seat. Maybe this is what they interpreted "edge of your seat gameplay" to mean?
|
# ¿ Jun 28, 2018 16:28 |
|
Hav posted:I like the physical distance between the seat and the bar. I also like the part where the seat is like a giant piece of furniture built into the floor on a panel that is 6x6 feet because instead of a normal piece of furniture with such as 4 legs, they need to have this ridiculous thing. God there's just so much right about it.
|
# ¿ Jun 28, 2018 17:55 |
|
My favorite thing about SC and ED is that for a few years SC was incrementing its "alpha version number" to keep up with Elite. So for example Alpha 2.0 came out right before Elite 2.0, Alpha 2.1 just before Elite 2.1, etc. It was always extremely obvious also.
|
# ¿ Jul 7, 2018 14:10 |
|
It'll let you do anything you want. Unless you want to run or jump near a door.
|
# ¿ Aug 5, 2018 15:04 |
|
The thing about it is, and why Illfonic's work couldn't be made to work with CIG's, comes down to big stompy robots. You see, Mechwarrior Online is another game that used Cryengine for some dumb idiot reason. But it turns out mechs are really big - bigger than fits on a standard CryEngine map. CryEngine has a hard limit on how many units you can get away from the origin. I want to say it's 1024x1024x400 from 0,0,0 but I'm talking purely out my rear end there. Anyhow, the solution MWO used was to redefine the unit itself - you can make a unit any size you want in terms of perceived size. In practice, this means modeling your things to be very small while looking very large. This worked really, really well for MWO because you had a fixed camera location. You could just stick the camera head inside the mech and not let it move, no problem. Basically, to make a giant grid of 200,000 kilometers or something, what CIG did was make individual character models decimal sizes of a unit. If default CryEngine has a unit representing 6 feet, CIG left it that way but would make a character model .0006 feet tall, or something like this. The "tell" that let us know this is the hack they were using was the original gunsight. If you followed this project early on, people would recall their crosshairs being all the gently caress over the place originally, and then later there would be two crosshairs at times, and just really crazy poo poo. The reason for this is that the "size" of a character can't really be changed - they were just changing the model. So you'd have this six thousand foot tall relative point that the game was identifying as your POV even while you were POVing from a .0006 foot tall thing on the ground. Meanwhile the physics engine was taking a poo poo because you just can't expect it to function the same way when you're dealing with poo poo far smaller than it was ever designed to render. I'm not an industry guy, my closest connection to it all is as a bad pretend space games journalist, but I do recall all this stuff very clearly from my time with MWO and we recognized the similarities immediately like 5 years ago when this was a thing. I do believe all of it was done away with the 64 bit change and so on - basically they have indeed modified the hell out of the engine to make it work. But it wasn't always that way.
|
# ¿ Sep 16, 2018 15:57 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:21 |
|
Between CitizenCon and Hurricane Michael today is just a great day for shitstorms
|
# ¿ Oct 10, 2018 15:23 |