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.

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.

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

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)).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 18:31:
ps: My website forum has a search function. Try it!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
And you would know either way, how? I can't WAIT to hear this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 08:45:
Subscribers? There are people paying a monthly fee for SC currently? WTF?

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.

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?

Kxmode wrote on Aug 27, 2018, 13:11:
I saw that in their roadmap. If I recall correctly netcode optimization appears in every quarter.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 27, 2018, 13:11:
That would make sense for Object Container Streaming.

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?

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.

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.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
Because I trust the lawyers and law firms he hires. Not Derek himself.

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.

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!"

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.