Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Jonas Taylor

Real Name Jonas Taylor   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname theyarecomingforyou
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Apr 8, 2005, 11:25
Total Comments 6796 (Guru)
User ID 22891
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


News Comments > NBA 2K19 Tips Off
1. Re: NBA 2K19 Tips Off Sep 11, 2018, 13:23 theyarecomingforyou
 
Boycott. This is yet another abusive gambling system targeted at children.  
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
84. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 3, 2018, 15:19 theyarecomingforyou
 
dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
You only just discovered this?

You're going around in circles. Point is that if the claims were bs - as YOU guys keep going on about - there would be NO case because the MtD would have passed ALL SIX BARS and the case would have ENDED.

That the judge only allowed 2/6 (do the percentage math), not 5/6, 4/6, not even 3/6, shows that the case HAS MERITS.
You're just being obtuse now. It means there is a legal basis for it to proceed to court, not that the claims have merit. They can be easily dismissed at the next stage. A Motion to Dismiss doesn't determine merit, only the legal basis for a claim. The Motion to Dismiss doesn't have any bearing on the likelihood of the claims being upheld, it just means further evidence is required to clarify those points.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
And that 1 of those was IMMATERIAL (it was about monetary damages, not about actual claims) to the case; while the other (2.1.2) was basically substituted (2.4). So if CIG do file another MtD for the new 2.4, and it's denied (as I expect that it will because the GLA was NEVER TERMINATED) we're at 5/6 going to trial. That doesn't sound like a bs claims case to me - or any normal person with half a brain.
A normal person doesn't have half a brain, they have a full one. I'm starting to see your confusion. Further, all of this is predicated on RSI being a signatory to the contract when it wasn't, only to a Autodesk licence. The court also overlooked that 'The Game' is defined as including Star Citizen and Squadron 42, even though it was defined by Crytek in the GLA. All things easily dismissed once evidence is presented in court.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
It's news to you because you already admitted that you don't even read my articles which have been CONSISTENT in explaining precisely what I just broke down for you. So your contention is that :

- The $100M monetary damages is nonsense
- Crytek winning a large award won't lead to the project collapsing
- Crytek won't get access to the source code - even though the GLA entitles them to it by law
Yes, $100m in damages for a contract in which CIG only paid a fraction of that amount is absurd. And given the amount won't be anything like that Star Citizen won't collapse. Finally, the GLA grants Crytek the right to improvements to the engine developed by CIG but there is no timeframe specified in the contract and CIG has changed engines, terminating the GLA. Stating 'by law' in a contract dispute is meaningless, as both parties have differing interpretations and it is for the court to determine the correct interpretation of the contract under the law.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
p10. Here she is citing the word used by CIG in their response to the lawsuit

Further, this interpretation of “exclusively” gives full effect to the GLA’s surrounding
provisions. For example, section 2.1.1’s non-exclusive grant allows Defendants to “develop,
support, maintain, extend and/or enhance CryEngine” without precluding Crytek from permitting
others to improve upon the software as well. Id. at § 2.1.1. Yet, the grant of authority is expressly
“exclusive” to Defendants “with respect to [Star Citizen]” because Defendants own Star Citizen
and Crytek presumably lacks the independent authority to grant third parties the right to improve
any software in connection with Defendants’ game. Id. In fact, Crytek appears to agree with this
point, even if Plaintiff misunderstands why it supports Defendants’ interpretation. See Opp’n at
15 (“Defendants’ interpretation of the word ‘exclusively’ in Section 2.1.2 is that Crytek gave only
Defendants—not some unrelated third party—the right to embed CryEngine in Defendants’ game
Star Citizen. That is absurd: How could Crytek license a third party to do anything at all with
Defendants’ software?” (citation omitted)).
Apologies if I wasn't clear. The judge sided with CIG's interpretation that Crytek's claim was absurd, rather than herself calling it absurd. It's a valid distinction but doesn't change the end result.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
I think I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that I know fully well how an MtD works. I even provided a cited links. You, on the other hand, are repeating the same nonsense, while ignoring factual evidence being presented. I know, facts tend to hurt. But don't worry, you'll live through it all.
You've made your opinion clear. We shall see.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
Math is hard. But you can do it. 1/6, 2/6, 3/6, 4/6, 5/6, 6/6. It's not hard. When you have a MtD that doesn't even get dismissed by 50% (3/6), I would say that you're not looking at a "bs lawsuit" - you're looking at a world of hurt.
The odds were 60/40 of it getting dismissed in its entirety. In other words there was a high chance that portions of the lawsuit would continue. So yeah, maths really isn't that hard and yet still you manage to mess it up.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
- It's hilarious that you think Crytek is on the "verge of bankruptcy", while having ZERO evidence to support that claim. Yet you're knocking me for making an analysis about CIG's ability to remain a going concern.
Well there's: 1) Crytek not paying staff, 2) Amazon saved Crytek from bankruptcy, 3) Crytek shuts down five studios after weak 2016, 4) Crytek's CEO was ousted after Crytek received investment to keep afloat

It's funny how you claim to know all the details about this situation and yet have conveniently ignored that Crytek is broke and desperate for money which is great motivation for a spurious lawsuit. If you don't even know basis about the situation like that then how can we take anything you say seriously?

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
You don't - and never have - argued in good faith. That's why most of your comments on BN over the years, tend to just be ignored or devolve into bs arguments, insults, attacks etc - mostly from and by you.
Wow, projection much?!

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
The project is DEAD, it's the laughing stock of the entirety of gaming - save for the few whales and White Knights still clinging onto to a shred of "hope", even as Chris and his cohorts do everything they can to take (using backer money to build studios, then sell it back to themselves, taking excessive pay - even as they plunge the project into debt, put their largest studio into insolvency etc) money OUT of the project and line their pockets. But that's OK though because throughout the history of scams, nobody likes to face the reality or admit that they had been scammed.
You're talking about Line of Defense, right? Because yeah, it is a massive laughing stock of the industry. Maybe even a scam. Good point.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
77. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 3, 2018, 04:44 theyarecomingforyou
 
dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 19:35:
LOL! Really? A FEDERAL JUDGE found that, contrary to what you guys keep spouting, the Crytek lawsuit had merits. To the extent that she only dismissed 2 of out 6 claims - of which one was immaterial, and another was replaced.
The Motion to Dismiss just deals with the legal principle of a claim, not its merit. The claims struck down had no basis in law, with the rest proceeding to trial. Anything dismissed favours the defendant but is neutral to the plaintiff.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 19:35:
1) I don't know how much CIG will pay out. And even if there is a settlement - which I do NOT see happening - that settlement won't be public. They never are. Only jury or court awards are made public via court filings. I already estimated that I don't see Crytek settling for anything less than $100M specifically due to a) precedent in cases like this b) the monetary damages are based on what CIG has benefited. In this case, we're at $192M and counting. All free money.

2) If Crytek win any aspect of this lawsuit, I fully expect that the development will end simply because the claims go beyond monetary damages.

3) Crytek WILL gain access to the source code via discovery. This part isn't even in dispute. Aside from the fact that the GLA always entitled them to the source code - and CIG isn't even disputing that. It's actually in their (CIG) own filing where they claimed they have been giving Crytek code drops; which Crytek says are bs and don't compile. You should read my last article on the case for the context of this, and just how destructive it's going to be for CIG - hence the reason they keep staling discovery, while trying to get Crytek to the settlement table without success.
There we go, that wasn't so hard. So basically your position is that Crytek is completely justified and you're expecting them to succeed with a claim for at least $100m, which will result in development of Star Citizen halting and Crytek getting access to the source code. Based on the legal opinions I've seen nothing even close to that will happen but at least we've got you on record for when you're proven wrong.

First, that's completely FALSE, as Crytek didn't hide anything. And second, the "legal experts" aren't more experienced than a FEDERAL JUDGE who didn't come up with ANY such findings in the Crytek complaint or 1) she would have flagged it 2) she would have granted CIG their completely MtD dismissal.
1) The judge called Crytek's interpretation of exclusive as 'absurd' and struck down elements of the lawsuit. 2) That's not how a Motion to Dismiss works and you either a) know that and are shitstirring, or b) you don't have a clue and therefore shouldn't be commenting on the matter.

Others? You mean you and that dude who posted the video that French put up with his correction? And which, barely 30 secs from the link the dude posted, French gave the MtD 60/40 of success? This was the SAME French who, after making all kinds of dismissive claims, went back and did another video retraction in support of what I called him out on? LOL!! Man, you're on a roll today.
Look, I'm not going to sit here and explain percentages to you. If you don't understand the basics then I really can't help you.

It defies logic that CIG could enter into a contract with Crytek worth $2m and then later decide to use another engine yet owe Crytek $100m as a result. Why would any company want to do business with Crytek if this is how it behaves? It's a desperate move by a company on the verge of bankruptcy.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
70. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 2, 2018, 19:14 theyarecomingforyou
 
dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 18:31:
LOL!! Nice try.

BOTH French and Lessor were making all kinds of claims regarding the lawsuit, that it had no merits, that the CIG response was solid, that the MtD would succeed etc. If a case is bs, NONE of the claims will survive a MtD. So CLEARLY the judge found that Crytek's complaints DID have merit. And the MtD ruling says all there is to say about that.
As I pointed out, neither said it would be dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss but that the claims were weak. Nothing has changed with the court's ruling. And how convenient that you refuse to state what you expect the outcome to be. How much will CIG have to pay out? Will development of the game shut down? Will Crytek be given access to CIG's source code? Come on, for someone who has all the answers you seem pretty shy about giving an answer.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 18:31:
pps: Yes, I watched all the videos about this that BOTH French and Lessor put out. Did you?
Yes, hence why I asked whether you had given you completely misrepresented what they actually said. As always you just hear what you want to hear. When legal experts point out that Crytek was concealing information from the court and has a weak case you hear 'this will put CIG out of business' and starting drooling. That's fine but everyone else here is free to watch the videos for themselves and others have pointed out exactly what I have, that they never claimed the Motion to Dismiss would stop all claims.

You can try to Trump your way through discussions by telling lies endlessly one after another but nobody here has the patience for that and you'll just be ignored. You're not important.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 18:31:
ps: My website forum has a search function. Try it!
I'd rather shove a screwdriver down my japseye than visit your website.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
67. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 2, 2018, 16:04 theyarecomingforyou
 
dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 15:01:
ps: Yeah, those are the same "experts" (that's why we have good, bad, and incompetent lawyers) who were saying the case was bs, Crytek had no case, it would be thrown out etc. And they know more about the law than a Federal judge. LOL!!

Then the MtD ruling came.
That only shows you haven't watched their videos, because neither predicted the Motion to Dismiss would be granted in its entirety. Both said parts were likely to be struck down but the rest would go on to court, where Crytek would like lose on most points. Also, federal judges make mistakes - that's why there are various stages of appeals courts. You can't just pretend federal judges are infallible just because it suits your argument. Further, it doesn't really matter that they survived the Motion to Dismiss as it just means they'll be dismissed later. It's NOT evidence that the claims have merit and will succeed.

You keep misrepresenting others and twisting their arguments. I'm personally not concerned about the lawsuit in the slightest. Even if CIG 'loses' it has raised plenty of money and it wouldn't have any material impact on the project. But just for historical record when you're eventually proven wrong, what do you think the outcome is going to be? How much do you think CIG will have to pay? What is going to happen to the project as a result? I want to be able to look back at your reply once the lawsuit is concluded.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
62. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 2, 2018, 14:33 theyarecomingforyou
 
dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
I don't even know where to begin. But since you are being uncharacteristically civil - for once - I'll indulge.
Likewise.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
Yes, those were predictions based on what sources (who would know) stated. They also stated that project could never been completed as pitched. Precisely what I stated in July 2015. They also stated that the public dev schedule was bogus. The one I saw took it well beyond 2021. And that was back when CIG was lying that the game would be completed in 2015. Now have since seen that they were right. Even the current dev schedule doesn't even go beyond 2019 at even 25% complete.
We know there is a longer term roadmap for Star Citizen - that's been mentioned before. That doesn't mean Chris Roberts was lying to backers. What's certain is that he has been ludicrously optimistic with its scheduling, with Chris even admitting he does that to keep developers under pressure to perform. It's also clear that CIG isn't good at communicating delays, leaving it to the last minute. But that's very different to CIG going out of its way to decieve backers, which I haven't seen any credible evidence to support.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
I have written extensively about this funding issue, and I'm not going to repeat them. The gist of it is that when a company has money to last a quarter, and the accountant doesn't know where additional money is coming from, you go get a loan, investors etc. When you fail to raise money, you go out of business. That's how that works.

CIG continued to raise money one year after they claimed the two games ($65M raised) would be completed.

We also know 1) they borrowed money in the UK 2) as per the Dec 2017 financials F42-UK group was INSOLVENT 3) they continued to raise money by all means necessary because without doing so the project - as sources had stated, and which we now know to be FACT - would have COLLAPSED in an UNFINISHED state.
That's simply not accurate. CIG has been raising over $35m per year to support development of the game via ship sales and game packages. Claiming that their accountant doesn't know where the money is going to be coming from is like claiming McDonald's doesn't know where its money is coming from because it doesn't know which specific customers will buy which particular burger. The reality is that the funding is reliable and the game has been budgeted around that. As for the loan, CIG published that information publicly in their tax returns and it was explained that the loan is an advance on the UK government's tax rebate for games developers. And CIG did have enough to complete the game but has scaled up development to match funding, rather than just pocketing all the money.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
If you think deals with AMD, Intel, Saitek etc are money paid up front, rather than in-kind promotions (in some cases, a percentage of amounts based on promo units sold), then you really don't know how that works. I do - because over the years most of us have done them too.
I didn't make any such assertion. We don't know the specifics of the deals. We know with the Intel deal that CIG received Optane drives for developers as well as those given to the community but that's money that they saved on having to buy such hardware. It is still a net benefit otherwise CIG wouldn't enter into such partnerships. We simply don't know whether money did or did not exchange hands.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
We have ZERO evidence that the funding numbers are accurate. So they can claim $35M each year for as long as they like. Right to the very end. NONE of that is material to the fact that they haven't even finished 20% of what they promised.

That they keep raising money doesn't matter. That's how scams work. Until they stop working. What matters is that at $192M, they still haven't completed a SINGLE game, for a project they claimed would be completed at $65M. And if they had money in reserves, why do they need to keep raising money? Mostly by selling futures (JPEG content)? And if they were making enough money selling game packages, why would they need to do that?
We don't know if the numbers are accurate but that assumes deceit. Even assuming the numbers are accurate CIG would still collapse if its outgoings were more than its incomings and assets. What I don't see the logic in is that idea that it's a scam. CIG shows the development as its going along and then that's released to backers, proving it's not just smoke and mirrors. Is it delayed? Sure, but that's not what a scam is. CIG has multiple studios around the globe employing hundreds of developers at industry competitive salaries. We know that's a massive cost and CIG couldn't have lasted this long if it was mismanaging funds or lying about them altogether. You could accuse CIG of dragging out development to pay their wages but that development is ultimately going into making a better game, so it's not a compelling argument.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
I always chuckle when I see you guys make this claim that we're trying to undermine the game, we're haters etc. It's almost as if you all believe that in all of gaming, we have to treat Star Citizen with special kid gloves. We don't. We don't "try to undermine" and/or "hate" it more than any other train-wreck in gaming. And that you think that it's us, not Chris Roberts, who is responsible for the success or failure of the project, just shows how delusional you guys really are. And THAT is why we continue to lol at you guys and the project. Incessantly.
No, you're a hater for spreading lies about Chris and Sandi, doxxing their children, claiming their marriage is on the rocks, etc. You've made it personal.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
Nobody CARES about content they have shown that's "coming" because most of it neither amounts to the games promised, nor have they materialized in any way, shape or form. It's hilarious that when we look at the dev schedule today, and all the crap they claimed were coming - since back in 2016 - that they keep either walking them back, or removing them completely. You do recall that "The worm was not a joke", right?

Chris has been LYING repeatedly and for the purpose of a SINGLE goal: to keep raising money from gullible fools because he over-reached, found a way to monetize scope creep, and keeps making promises to build a game that he knows fully well CANNOT be made as pitched. He knows it. The people who have left, know it. The people who are there, know it. And we who aren't delusional, know it.
Or he's just overly optimistic about scheduling and the game will just take a lot longer to get there that he thinks. We won't know until the end result - the game is released as expected or the project collapses.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
The game has more issues than performance. In it's current form - 7 yrs later - it's basically a glorified tech demo, no different from anything Future Mark would create to showcase and test video cards. Except SC is interactive. In fact, just this latest free fly weekend, there isn't a SINGLE positive consensus about the game by those who dared to try it. Yeah, it's Alpha - but this is gaming, and that excuse can only go so far. Especially when 7 yrs + $192M of other people's money this is all there is to show for it.
I don't dispute that. The game as it stands is a glorified tech demo and really isn't very enjoyable. In fact the game was more enjoyable back with the original Arena Commander release when the scope was much smaller, as the netcode and servers are a major bottleneck for the Persistent Universe. But all those issues are being worked on. The game may be in a lot better state by the end of the year or it may take longer but everybody is aware of the issues currently.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
It's curious that since 2017, we still haven't seen ANYTHING about the supposed procedural city they made a big deal of hype from - then raised a lot of money. What about SQ42? Or its schedule? Try me, my list is bigger, longer than yours, and well maintained. You guys can go ahead and pick and choose what you want to keep track of, but we have the bigger picture because we have NOTHING at stake and have NO incentive to pick and choose which part of the train wreck to highlight.
ArcCorp was shown off at CitizenCon last year and is still actively being worked on. It's currently scheduled for later this year but it's likely it will be delayed a bit beyond that. But that's nothing new. CIG showed off Alpha 3.0 back at Gamescom in August 2016 and it took until December 2017 to be released, with not all the features making it in. It's still coming, it's still been shown to the public in a playable build - it's just the rest of the technology required isn't ready. It depends on Object Container Streaming and Network Bind Culling, both due next month (but quite possibly will be delayed).

But please, do explain how it's a 'supposed procedural city' when it was shown being played live? And I was at the event, I got to see it on stage and got to see the face-over-IP being used by attendees.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
It's sad that you "believers" are deliberately making up lies about this, while accusing us of doing that.

The judge didn't regard the lawsuit as a "shit-show" or like such lawsuits, she would have dismissed it entirely based on the CIG filings.

Crytek didn't "mislead" the court, or the judge, who is a Federal judge and not a complete moron on the Internet, would have not only dismissed they claims, but also admonished them in her responses. You know, just like how ALL judges do when faced with bs from lawyers. But she didn't.
Funny then that the judge called Crytek's interpretation of 'exclusive' use "absurd" and struck down the claim. Other parts were also struck down and just because it survives the Motion to Dismiss doesn't mean it has merit, it just means it has to be heard by a court.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
And that "some of which were struck down" is a disingenuous take on her MtD ruling. I am not going to type up everything here again, you should read my article on that in which, using actual FACTS from the case and the law, I outlined precisely what survived and why.

Basically, there were only 2 (out of SIX) items that she didn't agree with. And in one of them, she pointed out to Crytek the alternative section which had stronger and more plausible claims.

1) Punitive damages wasn't material to their claim, and had nothing to do with it. It was about how much money they would get IF they won the case. Since corps can't claim that sort of damages, she killed it, while leaving the even more damaging version of their monetary claim.

It's like being arrested for burglary, then the cops search and find a dead body in the same area. Now you have a much bigger problem with a murder charge.

2) The wording of the "exclusive" (2.1.2) right to use CryEngine was ambiguous. The judge cited case law which pointed it out. Yes, it shocked most of us who are not lawyers. But then, though she didn't even have to, the judge then pointed out in her OWN notes the part (2.4) of the contract which they should be claiming and which is more applicable and even more damaging.

And Crytek went for it by immediately filing an amendment based on that. Though they could have filed a dissent based on the judge's ruling, they didn't. They now had a stronger and even more damaging cause of action. And if the judge noticed that, being that it's something she KNOWS she would have to later rule on, she wouldn't have pointed it. That she did, says a LOT about the fact that it's now one hassle that CIG has to deal with and they already know how the judge feels about it.

It's like being up on charges for jaywalking, but because your attorney is Rudy Giuliani, you end up with a manslaughter conviction.

Please, go ahead and show me the "outrageous claims" which somehow magically made it past a FEDERAL JUDGE.
I've already linked to the legal analysis by Lior Leser before. He pointed out the judge's mistake in letting some claims past but that will just be corrected at the next stage. Just because some claims survived the motion to dismiss is not an indication they will succeed - it just means that both sides will have to present their evidence in court. As for Crytek's amended complaint, it's no more damaging - it's irrelevant if the court doesn't side with them.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
So, that you guys are seeking to minimize the impact of this lawsuit, while twisting it because, well, that's what you guys do, is so hilarious that when we get to the nitty gritty, we're going to be laughing our asses off at you guys, while pointing to posts like this.
No. We're going based off legal opinions from tech lawyers who have stated that Crytek's claims are misleading and/or factually wrong. Excuse me for looking to legal experts for opinions rather than just making things up as I see fit.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
That's YOUR opinion. The judge, who knows more than you and I, obviously disagrees or the claims wouldn't have made it past a MtD; which btw, motions to dismiss are designed to weed out bs lawsuit claims.

It is clear that you have NO idea how the law actually works, but that's not stopping you from twisting the narrative and skewing it toward CIG because well, you have no choice.
Again, it's not my opinion. It's the opinion of legal experts like Lior Leser and Leonard French who specialise in tech contract law and have taken the time to go through it in detail. I wouldn't ask anyone to trust my legal expertise, nor would I trust yours.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
And you would know either way, how? I can't WAIT to hear this.
Because I am active in the community and speak to people regularly buying ships, including those that have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the game and attend most of the community events. But can I prove the figures are as CIG claim? Of course not, neither can you prove otherwise.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
Yes, CIG is totally going to lie about everything, but not about money. No, not at all. Money, the #1 root of all evil and the primary reason that people lie, cheat, steal, kill. But CIG, run by execs who have a HISTORY of specifically behavior geared toward lying, cheating and stealing, is completely above that. God, I can't even stop laughing. Thanks for the Sun morning lols.
Chris Roberts has a proven track record when it comes to making games. Do I believe he is making Star Citizen for altruism? Absolutely not. Does he pay himself a large salary? Almost certainly. But nothing you have presented makes a credible case that he has decided to destroy his reputation by committing a large scale, high profile scam when he's already a multi-millionaire with an extremely comfortable life. Far more likely is that he's trying to make the game promised but it's a lot more difficult and time consuming than he thought.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
57. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 2, 2018, 06:34 theyarecomingforyou
 
dsmart wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 20:54:
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 20:14:
Says the man that has been claiming the imminent demise of Star Citizen since 2014. You claimed CIG was on the brink of collapse years ago yet their funding has proven nothing but consistent. You can hate the game all you want but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of support.

Says the man who doesn't know how analysis works, or that there is something called a futures market, or that all analysts do is make predictions based on "at hand" numbers.

It's 7 yrs + $192M later, and not even 20% completed. So back in Oct 2015 when they had $85M and sources passed along that info, if funding had stopped, the game would totally have been completed, right? And they wouldn't have had to keep doing all kinds of scammy things to keep getting money?

That was 3 years ago btw - and still no game, even after +$107 added. Go ahead, tell me again how wrong I am and that there is totally a game.
You predicted that CIG would collapse and the game would go unfinished... it hasn't. You were wrong. Chris Roberts has stated that if funding were to drop that staffing would be scaled back to complete the project. And as much as you criticise him there's one thing we can all agree - for better or for worse he is extremely good at raising funds for the game. The game has been raising $35m per year from backers and that's not counting deals with companies like AMD and Intel. Even if you dispute the figures being put out there's no way CIG could have lasted this long given the number of developers employed.

It's one thing to be sceptical about the project and highlight legitimate concerns, it's another to actively seek to undermine and spread lies and propaganda in an attempt to cause it to collapse. The game as it stands today has little replayability, poor performance, netcode issues, etc. But CIG has shown off a lot of upcoming content and it has improved a lot over the years, with big milestones in the next six months or so.

There's plenty we can agree on. CIG's priority of long-term goals and fundraising over the playable state of the game has left the current playable game a buggy tech demo, which is at risk of collapse if funding stops (though we differ on how much of a risk that is). CIG has consistently produced wildly over-optimistic / deliberately misleading schedules to avoid criticism of delays. CIG has been aggressive in fundraising, seeking to devalue existing backers in pursuit of new money (see: Warbond sales, CitizenCon paywall, land claims, etc). CIG often withholds progress of the game to maximise sales for events like GamesCom and CitizenCon, especially this year - supposedly 3.3 is due out in October and yet we haven't seen much at all of the new planet Hurston and it's landing location Lorville.

dsmart wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 21:24:
And given the execs penchant for making shit up consistently, it's no surprise that they're freaking out over discovery in the Crytek lawsuit because THAT is going to reveal the actual numbers because Crytek will have access to their accounting because of their entitlement claim. There is NO way CIG is going to be able to keep that out of discovery.
That lawsuit is a shitshow. Crytek sought to deliberately mislead the court and made some outrageous claims, some of which were struck down by the Motion to Dismiss. CIG still has the ability to file a further Motion to Dismiss to address Crytek's updated claims in the Second Amended Complaint. Many of the claims that do get through that won't stand up to scrutiny in court and Crytek knows that. It's just trying to throw everything in to see what gets through.

CIG doesn't need to lie about figures because the community is constantly willing to buy new ships and content. However, if CIG is lying about funding then I'm all for exposing that.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
51. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 20:14 theyarecomingforyou
 
dsmart wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 20:04:
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 11:07:
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 10:44:
SlimRam wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 09:58:
... So, I guess what I'm asking is, where the fuck are they still getting all their money? I suppose that they could be investing it somehow but I'm not sure? ...
Last time I saw someone post stats they were still getting two million dollars a month in contributions/sales/whatever... which is freaking incredible.

Edit: A google search later, here is someone's tracking (no idea how accurate this is) Crowdfunding Development Spreadsheet according to that, in 2018:

Jan: $2,188,144
Feb: $1,745,333
Mar: $1,977,863
Apr: $2,621,142
May: $2,889,835
Jun: $1,720,444
Jul: $2,576,615
it looks accurate
Star Citizen: Live Funding Stats
They are going to need a lot more money and several more years to finish this awesome game.
#GiveTillitHURTs


That live spreadsheet pulls off the RSI website which we all know is bogus. So don't trust it.
Says the man that has been claiming the imminent demise of Star Citizen since 2014. You claimed CIG was on the brink of collapse years ago yet their funding has proven nothing but consistent. You can hate the game all you want but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of support.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
50. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 20:11 theyarecomingforyou
 
Drayth wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 18:08:
All they had to do was announce their plans to possibly do a professional streaming service, put all the details that have been posted since the dumpster fire into the announcement and ask for community feedback on the matter.

Can't really do a poll since some are getting it for free anyways (which would stack the poll against those who would have to pay), but at least start a discussion that's visible to the backers.

Chris put the cart before the horse, thinking they're on the same footing with the fans as Blizzard. There's a large fan base, yes. Until at least one of the games is shipped though they have to be crystal clear about any channels for more funding.
Exactly. When pitching CitizenCon 2018 they could have presented the options and asked for fan feedback. Instead what we saw was a reactionary measure when CitizenCon tickets failed to sell out due to the larger venue they opted for. Many fans would have been happy to buy an optional digital pass with a few flair items (digital trophy, skins, etc)to support the event. Instead CIG held to ransom a livestream that has always been free previously to cover for the mistake in overextending themselves with the venue.

I actually spoke to Sandi last year in Cologne and she said they were considering a larger venue for Gamescom that would be triple the size and feature a live orchestra, which given the issues selling tickets for CitizenCon 2018 sounds like a pretty troublesome idea. I can understand wanting to expand the events but the issue is that it can distract from game development.

Previously CIG has been happy to share content for upcoming patches but we've barely seen anything for 3.3 and the first planet that's going to be introduced and Around the Verse has been shrunk from 30-40 minutes of lots of content previews to 5-10 minutes of mainly community content. Fans are not happy that CIG is choosing to withold content from the community and then charge them for the privilege of watching it. There was already some discontent about the lack of content being shown and this was the straw that broke the camels back.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
47. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 17:02 theyarecomingforyou
 
Hump wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 16:03:
what balls on this guy.

I find it difficult to believe that the FTC can't get him on some kind of fraud charges.
On what basis? It was clearly stated from the start that backers were paying to support development, not for a finished product. It was also warned there would likely be delays and changes in development direction.

One can dislike the delays and business decisions made by Chris Roberts and CIG but that doesn't make them illegal.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > FINAL FANTASY XIV Turns Eight Five
2. Re: FINAL FANTASY XIV Turns <strike>Eight</strike> Five Sep 1, 2018, 16:01 theyarecomingforyou
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 14:59:
The kids want to play this with me after watching Dad of Light. I'm kind of reticent to get 3 copies for $60, then have to pay $13 per month per person on top of that.

Anything similar to this that's cheaper?
Well it's currently on sale for $30 and the Starter Edition is $20, so I take it the subscription is the bone of contention? I'm not sure there's much in the way of decent free to play MMOs at the moment.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
41. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 14:47 theyarecomingforyou
 
dsmart wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 07:57:
You're kidding, right? The game is firmly P2W. That right there implies that it's already split into a caste system of haves and havenots.
There is potential for the game to be pay-2-win but it's not that clear cut. The bigger ships require a crew, which necessitates playing with other players. Without cooperation those larger ships are useless, as they can't be defended and will be easily boarded and stolen. That means those not spending $2,500 on a Javelin will be able and required to play on the bigger ships. Also, the weapons and components for ships will be low-level and if fully upgraded will be worth more than the base ship and require players to travel to different star systems to acquire. NPCs will also make up 90% of encounters, where encounters will be balanced to the ships that players have.

I believe the game could be well balanced to negate any criticism of pay-2-win, especially as the community is extremely vocal and militant about excessive monetisation as we have seen here. But I'm also willing to accept I may be proven wrong. I'm happy to take that gamble but if others aren't then I completely understand that. I wouldn't recommend anybody back the game currently unless they are happy to gamble on it becoming a playable game. I backed for $35 during the initial Kickstarter and have increase my backing when major milestones have been reached. I accept that all the money I have backed may go right down the toilet but I've enjoyed following the game and it is my money to spend as I choose.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
40. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 14:36 theyarecomingforyou
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 08:45:
Subscribers? There are people paying a monthly fee for SC currently? WTF?
Not quite. There is a subscription to support community events, which funds weekly Youtube shows like Around the Verse and Calling All Devs. There are some other perks like skins and trial periods for ships, as well as discounted for merchandise, etc. Community events like CitizenCon and the salaries of community managers are funded from community subscriptions rather than game or ship sales.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 13:45:
Maybe TheyAreComingForYou can let us know what he gets for his subscription. IIRC, some exclusive video? And as he mentioned, ability to watch CitizenCon live for free.
You get access to behind the scenes concept art before it is released publicly, access to a subscriber section on the forum, some skins for in-game items, etc. It really is to show support for the game than for any tangible reward. Needless to say I'm not impressed by this agressive monetisation by CIG and am looking at cancelling my subscription.

I appreciate that CIG needs to raise money to continue development at the current scale and funding has consistently been over $35m per year. Ship sales have been labelled as pay-2-win and it really does come down to whether those with just a basic package can compete in the final game, which I believe they will given the radically different professions and because NPCs will make up 90% of the in-game population allowing CIG to balance accordingly. But CIG can also be tone deaf about some issues and has a tendancy to announce things like this last minute without any regard for how the community will react.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
19. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 06:33 theyarecomingforyou
 
El Pit wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 05:35:
The whales showed some reaction for the first time?! The time of doom is near! Captain Ahab (aka Chris Roberts) is in deep trouble - they don't embrace the harpoon anymore when he shoots it at the whales! What is going on? The Church of Star Citizen is in danger? Could it really be happening now?
Not quite. Concierge backers ($1,000+) would have been able to watch the livestream for free, as would subscribers. This was a backlash from the general community objected to CIG trying to split the community into haves and havenots, protesting a community celebration being put behind a paywall for the first time.

That said there were a lot of concierge backers, like myself, who strongly and publicly denounced this decision by CIG. But many of the larger backers didn't understand the fuss and defended CIG charging what it wants because we live in a capitalist society. Needless to say as a socialist I reject that mentality.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
18. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 06:25 theyarecomingforyou
 
I'm really astonished at the lack of thought that went into this idea. CitizenCon has always been about showing off the game to backers and the general public, of celebrating together. Hiring a professional video crew charging over $100,000 and then forcing those most loyal to the game to pay for it is completely out of touch, even if it was going to be uploaded later to YouTube for free.

The issue for me wasn't what it would cost for me personally, as I'm already a subscriber and am a concierge level backer (those backing over $1,000) so wouldn't have had to pay. What I resent is that those who can't afford the digital streaming pass or those who choose not to buy it were being treated like second-class citizens. Chris Roberts even talked about how he doesn't like paywalls in games yet that apparently doesn't extend to community events that have historically been free.

The backlash was immense and justified but I still have a lot of friends who have defended the original decision to charge for a pass and even hoped it would continue going forward. They saw the fuss as backers being entitled and demanding things for free.

CIG may have backed down on this one but it's still damaged the reputation of the game at a time when content was starting to take priority and they're pushing out regular quarterly releases, with a public roadmap of future updates. It was a poorly thought through cash grab to compete with Blizzard, a publisher that has put out countless games and actively supports them beyond release. And now CIG has an excuse as if there are any streaming issues they'll just blame them on the cutbacks.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Free Weekend
34. Re: Star Citizen Free Weekend Aug 27, 2018, 13:49 theyarecomingforyou
 
Kxmode wrote on Aug 27, 2018, 13:11:
I saw that in their roadmap. If I recall correctly netcode optimization appears in every quarter.
Not quite. Every release has 'Performance Optimisation' entry but netcode is listed when there are specific changes. In 3.3 that means NBC and OCS; in 3.5 that means network multithreading and the lobby refactor; server meshing was originally listed on the roadmap but has been pushed back to focus on short-term playability.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 27, 2018, 13:11:
That would make sense for Object Container Streaming.
Not so much. Whilst OCS and NBC will reduce server load and clientside processing the intention is to add more functionality (e.g. more NPCs, planets, high player counts, etc). Amazon Web Services (AWS) are likely to be cheaper as a result of using Lumberyard, depending on the specific deal that CIG negotiated, but it's also about the support Amazon provides as part of the Lumberyard platform. CIG would likely have negotiated a better deal than average given that it is the highest profile Lumberyard title.

Right now with the free weekend the server performance is worse than usual and I found it unplayable earlier. The sooner the netcode improvements can make it in the better but I'm not expecting 3.3 to be a miracle fix - likely it will introduce other issues and take some time to polish out. It's also possible it will slip from the 3.3 release, even though CIG has pulled people off other projects to try to meet target.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Free Weekend
32. Re: Star Citizen Free Weekend Aug 27, 2018, 10:47 theyarecomingforyou
 
Kxmode wrote on Aug 26, 2018, 12:23:
First, the engine began with the Star Citizen 2012 demo Crytek created for the original pitch. Then a different core game based on the same Cry Engine. Finally, the transition to Lumberyard; a derivative of Cry Engine. Now as a web developer/programmer, I know how difficult it is to go from a major version of something to a new version. Granted when the devs keep some of the existing functionality so that there isn't system shock, that makes the transition smoother, but that's not always the case. With Lumberyard, I'm pretty sure Amazon's dev had to do a significant amount of work to integrate it with Twitch. Which begs the question, how much of a benefit or a hindrance has Lumberyard been for net code optimization?
The move from CryEngine to Lumberyard took two engineers a couple of days to complete. I believe they stated the build of CryEngine they were using was actually the same one that Lumberyard was based on, as otherwise it would have required a lot more work to migrate. As for netcode optimisation, the engine change had no bearing as CIG is currently developing its own netcode.

One of the major reasons for the change was to reduce server costs by moving from Google's cloud infrastructure to that of Amazon, as well as Lumberyard being a more actively developed engine more in line with the features Star Citizen will be looking to implement. It was a small amount of work for a lot of future gain.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Free Weekend
31. Re: Star Citizen Free Weekend Aug 27, 2018, 10:34 theyarecomingforyou
 
Digitalfiends wrote on Aug 26, 2018, 02:17:
So first impression (running 980Ti, i7-2600K, 32GB RAM, SSD) is that the game runs alright with my older rig and looks fantastic. I *loved* all the attention to detail and how the environment can affect you (vacuum/pressure, lack of oxygen, etc); the ship interiors are just gorgeous. Being able to go from a space station to a ship to a planet, with the amount of detail shown, is just ridiculously cool and has so much potential.

That being said, the netcode is a HUGE let down. My internet connection is 250 Mb/s down and 16 Mb/s up, with generally low latency to most places in the US, but I experienced frequent rubber-banding and general sync issues (falling through floors, etc). I figured the lag might just affect the open world part of the game, due to poor server performance and too many people, so I tried the FPS portion and experienced the same issues. Clearly the netcode is not up to snuff. This is something they really need to focus on as it absolutely kills the experience.
The netcode is presently based on legacy Lumberyard code, which is not fit for purpose. It is currently undergoing several substantial reworks, with Network Bind Culling and Object Container Streaming both due in the next patch in October. That means if you're by Port Olisar, the default spawn point, the number of entities required to be calculated will be reduced from 70,000 to around 9,000. The server code is also being changed to be dramatically more thread scalable, which will also help.

In other words, netcode is a known issue.

Digitalfiends wrote on Aug 26, 2018, 02:17:
There also doesn't feel like a lot to do and given how long this game has been in development and how much money RSI has raised, I'm kind of shocked they aren't further along. Yes they've accomplished amazing technical feats such as the incredible planetary landings (Elite II had them but not with this fidelity); yes the ships feel real and look great; yes you feel like each ship will feel different to operate. Unfortunately, in its current state, the whole thing feels like a big tech demo - almost like RSI forgot they are making a game and that it needs to not just be graphically incredible but also fun.

I'm going to give it a few more tries but unless RSI starts focusing more on gameplay content, I don't see Star Citizen being much of a game any time soon. I'm thinking it'll be at least another 2-3 years of development before it actually starts to feel like a game worth paying for.
Your criticism is fair. There really isn't much in the way of gameplay currently and the performance makes what is there a bit of a chore. However, by the end of the year we're expected to have major netcode improvements, major content additions (the first planets, FOIP, FPS combat missions, new mission givers, etc) and major performance improvements. Further ahead one of the upcoming major game-changer will be Server Meshing, which will allow players to be moved from one server to another behind the scenes to create a seamless world - the game won't be limited to the 50 players per server we currently see.

And yeah, you're probably about right with your estimate of 2-3 years to really be an enjoyable experience. Right now it has great moments, especially if you're playing with friends, but not enough replayability to play regularly. And whilst the game has certainly been substantially delayed and evolved from what was originally planned, what matters is the end result and I'm confident it will be a highly replayable and enjoyable game.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG/Crytek Lawsuit Proceeds
137. Re: CIG/Crytek Lawsuit Proceeds Aug 21, 2018, 16:06 theyarecomingforyou
 
Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
Because I trust the lawyers and law firms he hires. Not Derek himself.
Oh, so now you don't trust Derek? If so then why do you trust him to accurately represent his legal team? He could be making it all up for all we know, which given his record of trolling would be highly likely.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
Sigh. You're deflecting, again. I already said there are lawyers for and against arguments. For the umpteenth time, that's not the point I've made repeatedly. It's not about who's right. It's about the interpretation of the law. Derek hired lawyers to give their thumbs up to his legal points. Whether or not you agree with them, that's another argument.
Derek is a troll who has repeatedly lied to further his trolling campaign against Chris Roberts and CIG. You're trusting him to accurately represent the views of his legal team when we don't even know if they have been contacted... you know, because he's a fucking liar. Yet you're not interested in the legal analysis of an independent tech lawyer willing to go on record with his interpretation? Bizarre.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
The law firm Derek goes to to vet the information in the linked Op-Ed IS independent legal analysis because they have to confirm his legal points as correct otherwise he could get sued. It is you who refuse to acknowledge them because "Lawyer working with Derek = BAD!"
And who gives us that information? Derek, a professional troll and proven liar. And that legal team is employed to represent Derek and his agenda. Independent means having no stake in the matter, which is obviously not an appropriate description for Derek's legal team who are employed to represent his interests. I mean that's a very basic concept. If you don't even understand what independent means then I really don't think we're going to get anywhere here.

As usual you refuse to comment on the legal analysis of independent tech lawyers whilst treating Derek's assertions as gospel. It's frankly pathetic. I mean I'd at least like to see you provide evidence to refute Lior Leser and Leonard French's legal analysis. I'm perfectly willing to consider a different interpretation if it is supported by a lawyer and not a professional troll.

Look, we get it, you hate CIG and take every opportunity to evangelise others to your perspective. I don't have a problem with that. There's plenty of legitimate criticism of the project - delays, P2W, feature creep, business model, broad scope, etc - and I have expressed that on many, many occasions. But I will not stand idly by as you seek to legitimise Derek's trolling campaign, a man who lied about Sandi being racist, doxxed Chris Roberts' children, lied about staff departures and falsely prophecised the demise of the project for about half a decade now.

Derek is a scumbag and, if you're a decent person (and I like to believe that you are), then I would ask you to take a long hard look at yourself and ask why you are choosing to align with him instead of supporting your position through independent evidence. I'm honestly happy to discuss criticism of the project with you but you need to make your own points and support your position with credible evidence.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG/Crytek Lawsuit Proceeds
130. Re: CIG/Crytek Lawsuit Proceeds Aug 20, 2018, 15:46 theyarecomingforyou
 
Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 15:00:
theyarecomingforyou ignored that honest assessment. For die-hard backers everything said of the project gets filter through a binary lens of "for us or against us." He forgets that I'm not Derek. See, unlike Derek, it's possible for me to take an objective view of Roberts and Star Citizen, and find it's strengths and weakness.
It's also possible for you to cure cancer and colonise Mars... yet what is possible is not what is probable. I don't ask you to take my argument at face value but I certainly expect you to produce independent legal analysis supporting your position, which you have failed to do. Instead we get more bullshit saying 'I trust Derek's legal team' or 'you've got to listen to him because it's the only thing I have supporting my position'.

Yet again you refuse to acknowledge Derek's repeated false claims and lies about the project, choosing instead to present him as a credible witness. To then claim you are objective is frankly astonishing.

-

For those following this, Crytek has amended their complaint and there is a legal analysis of that over on YouTuber Law. The gist of it is that Crytek is misrepresenting contract law and whilst their claim that CIG is obligated to not promote another engine may survive the Motion to Dismiss it will ultimately be dismissed during discovery or subsequently afterwards.

I'm sure Kxmode will be able to present a indepedent legal analysis showing the opposite... ha, just kidding. He'll just post more links to Derek's trolling campaign and/or offer to make love to him.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6796 Comments. 340 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo