Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 12:59:

Cutter wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 12:09:

On a related note, Texas Democratic state senator Wendy Davis took to Twitter to take SXSW 2016 organizers to task about their decision on the panels.

“Women face harassment & misogyny in gaming. That @sxsw empowers aggressors in defeating discourse is disturbing.”

Really? And she knows this how? What's her first hand experience in the matter? And what about men who experience discrimination and misandry from women? Oh right, they don't matter.

Probably because there's a ton of examples of it all over the net. Saying that only first-hand experience counts is nonsensical. While guys may get some abuse like that, there's infinitely fewer cases of it, just based on sheer numbers of men vs women in gaming.

Bullshit.

The Pew online harassment study, based on a survey of nearly 3,000 Internet users last June, found that 44 percent of men and 37 percent of women had experienced some form of online abuse, from name-calling to physical threats and stalking. The biggest gender gap was in the fairly mild category of being called offensive names, experienced by nearly a third of men on the Internet but only 22 percent of female users. However, more men—10 percent, compared to 6 percent of women—also reported being physically threatened.

http://time.com/3546044/online-harassment-affects-men-too/

Cutter is right... you're just making shit up...

Jesus H. Tap-dancing Keee-Rist!!!!

Did anyone actually read Roberts' letter? Derek Smart is living rent-free in his head! Talk about a persecution complex. Honestly, the only thing missing is CR accusing DS of stealing his strawberries. "That's when I knew I had them! The Strawberries!"

Oh, and I'll just leave this right here (called it months ago):



24. Re: More Derek Smart vs. Star Citizen Aug 24, 2015, 11:55 Eirikrautha

Shineyguy wrote on Aug 24, 2015, 10:12:
"And through that, we’re going to subpoena and depose every single key person"

Because that's what they need; another delay to development.

Please...

Chris Roberts will be positively giddy at this. At this point, there is no endgame for him. Like any other ponzi scheme, funding yesterday with today's money, Chris Roberts has no way to bail on SC without accepting the blame. When the musical chairs money runs out, CR will be left without a chair to sit in. He'd be totally at fault.

Now, he'll get to blame the time and expense of the lawyers, etc., to weasel out of the blame for SC's crash. "See, SC would have been awesome, but {insert grumbling here}..."

Heck, this is the biggest favor that Derek Smart could have done Chris Roberts. I'm beginning to think that there is collusion between the two, because this is so perfect for CR to dodge the fallout from SC...

Creston wrote on Oct 5, 2015, 11:42:

nin wrote on Oct 5, 2015, 09:39:

Shenmue 3 Creator Says He "Could Do With a Bit More Money." *Blink*

Yeah, couldn't we all?

"I said yep, what a concept..."

Soon you will be able to buy Shenmue spaceships ... pictures of spaceships ... not-actually-designed-yet spaceships that 'meet their specifications' for $400! BUY NOW!

Ouch! I actually laughed out loud at that. Sadly, though, I can actually see it happening ($50 for an exclusive extra character, etc.)

jacobvandy wrote on Oct 4, 2015, 14:36:
Forget No Man's Sky... The real story is we have a GAME DEVELOPER being seriously interviewed on a late night talk show. I'm sure a bunch of old codgers were bored or confused, but this is it, we've made it!

We need to find out who their VP of Marketing is...

Comet wrote on Oct 3, 2015, 21:54:

dsmart wrote on Oct 3, 2015, 18:47:

uhm no, she has not. And my guess is that you don't know anything that I don't.

What she posted on Twitter is a Dean's letter from an undergraduate study. And we think it's fake. The investigation into that one is on-going. More soon.

Hi Derek,

A couple of things.
First, 3 months since your first blog post.
I've read all your blogs and we had time to exchange opinions there.
I respect your opinion, but it is still only an opinion. And your arguments, as valid as they may be to you, are still speculation.

You have made several accusations but we, the public, still haven't seen actual documents to support your claims and an actual lawsuit that would determine if your right or not.

What I hope you understand, is that so far what we have is your word vs CIG word. What we have is CIG developers on one side defending the project and some ex CIG employers criticizing it.
You've been investigating and you have made several points in your blog, but what about leaked documents that prove the project is running out of money?
What about documents that prove Sandi is doing a bad marketing job?

If you have any evidence that proves Sandi did something that damages SC than release it.

Words like, "We think it's fake" is precisely the problem with your argument. More speculation.

And finally Derek. Here we are at Bluesnews.com. You are a very active person online. But the issue here is that you are making some very strong accusations and the opposing side can't invest resources to respond to your comments on the several online websites you visit.
So, yet again, we have your perspective. That again, is only that.

Your last blog post looks just like a politician post trying to get support for his campaign.

So be responsible, stop the politics and just post the freaking evidence or go to court NOW.

Let me be a bit more clear.
When you ACTUALLY have evidence that what Sandi has posted is fake, post about it. But not before.
Given who you are, What you just did is extremely irresponsible.
You´re accusing someone of faking her credentials and you STILL have no evidence.

IF someone had ever accused me of posting a false CV without evidence of falsehood you can be sure I would take him to court.
As you know faking your CV is a criminal offence. So obviously, I would need to clear my name.

So Derek. Are you absolutely sure Sandi has faked her credentials?

So much concern trolling. Let's deal with "facts" then, shall we?

The fact is that CRI has produced nothing except a few tech demos, and way later than original projected dates. Anything else is speculation.

We know that CR himself has increased the scope of the project (ships, features, etc.) as more revenue has been incoming (this is based on his own statements).

We know that CRI has reworked numerous portions of the game, not based on design documents, but on the changing "visions" of CR and others (the helmet UI system, etc.). Both presently employed, named employees and CR himself have related this.

We know that CRI has built or created a number of resources instead of renting them (example: the motion capture studio). This is almost always less cost-effective than renting such facilities. The usual economically feasible reasons for such expenditures are because CRI plans to use them on future projects (meaning this money is being spent on something other than SC) or because they will be needed throughout the production process, suggesting that there is a high likelihood that these resources are not set in stone by design. Regardless of the reason, when know that CRI built when it could have rented. We know this because CR said so.

We know that Chris Roberts has a history in this industry of wandering design, so much so that his previous company ran out of money and had to be bought by Microsoft in order for his last game to be released. This is historical fact.

The above first sentences of each paragraph are statements of fact. Whether or not you agree with my interpretations of them, they are based totally on CR and CRI's own declarations. You may choose to ignore these facts. But Occam's Razor suggests that history is repeating itself, and any other assumption here requires stretching beyond the obvious facts.

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 4, 2015, 06:07:

Krovven wrote on Oct 4, 2015, 02:26:
You do understand that nepotism isn't illegal right? And, it's a private company, therefore it's nobody else's business who they hire and who they don't. They don't have to answer to stockholders. They don't have to answer to "donators" either.

As I already stated...she has clearly excelled at her job, as idiots have forked over 90 mil based on that marketing. Degree or not, I'm sure plenty of companies would like to hire her simply based on that alone.

You read somewhere eh? Provide the proof that you witch hunters keep claiming to have, but it's nothing more than heresay.

^ exactly this

Sandi Gardiner's previous professional or private life is really no one's business but her own.

[ Quick BTW: I already posted a link where Sandi herself said she does in fact have a MBA in marketing (she didn't say from which school in that video though). In this video here she is also talking a bit about her professional experience which obviously included marketing jobs in the fashion industry, commercial real estate and restaurants & night clubs. ]

Now even if any of that turned out to be a lie (and there is so far absolutely no reason or evidence to believe that what she said is untrue) then what?
OK. It would make her a less trustworthy person for sure. But what else? Fraud? L. O. L.

As for whether backer money is being spent wisely on this particular VP of Marketing, the numbers speak for themselves. $90 million. 'nuff said.
And she's known to be working her ass off. Many other team members (mostly on Reverse the Verse) have frequently mentioned that Sandi is a complete 24/7 workaholic.
So a very big LOL @ whoever said she's just baking cookies and being Chris' wife.


So if you ask me I'd say stop fighting windmills and go back to questioning what CR said (like the big fat lie that the PU was not part of the initial pitch). Question the game, the scope, the crazy feature list, the feasibility (or not) of many features in an online environment, whether CR will be able to shift the laws of physics and make it all happen and all that shit.
But the whole Sandi crusade is really leading absolutely nowhere and is just plain stupid and creepy at this point.

No. You are flat out wrong. The amount of money raised is no more indicative of Sandi's competence than her lack of degrees (if accurate) is evidence of her incompetence.

Marketing is a value added position; it can only be judged in terms of how much more money is made due to marketing. This is why the position is so hard to judge (and frequently the place where financial shenanigans occur). The fact is that we don't know if CRI had hired someone else if they would have made $45 million in crowdfunding or $180 million. There is no way to measure her "success" without knowing how much would have been made without her, which is unknowable. Maybe someone with more credentials would have doubled the take. Maybe they would have made much less. Without that information, you can't judge her effectiveness (especially considering the enthusiasm for the product even before she was named to the position). So you are just wrong. Your assumptions are no more valid than assumptions that she has lost CRI money.

What is NOT an assumption is that nepotism (hiring those related to you) is often viewed as unethical. This goes doubly so when it is unannounced. My wife works in the same industry I do, and we often work together. The very first thing I do is identify her as my wife and relay her credentials. Because she actually has more awards than I do, most folks are very happy to have her working with me. The fact that this was not the case with CRI makes this look like nepotism, even if it is based only on qualifications. Especially in a "soft" position like marketing (where it is hard to quantify value added)...

Oh, and one thing about the last few replies on this thread. As soon as I see an ad hominem, it immediately identifies who has no valid argument (generic ad hominems like "misogyny" count double)...

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 3, 2015, 10:31:

SunnyD wrote on Oct 3, 2015, 01:21:
My addition:

- Going from needing approximately $2 million to release the kickstarted game as initially advertised to requiring $2-3 million on a monthly basis to survive. Feature-creepin' scope, indeed.

No, the original $2m would have required them to work with outside investors - they raised enough to avoid having to do that. As for the spending level, that matches the investment level. If they'd stuck to the original budget they'd only be spending around $85,000 a month and would have $88m sitting in a bank account. Does that sound sensible to you? Because it sounds pretty fucking retarded to me.

It's pretty obvious that you've never been in charge of a large project (at least outside of government), then. Far from sounding retarded, banking money (especially with interest, if possible) is VITAL to any large project. The requirements of the project should drive expenditures, not the other way around! That's what has many of us so worried about this project.

On any corporate project, you do not double your spending simply because you have double the income (now government projects, where allocated monies can be removed from your budget if not spent, are different. But the moment CRI says they are being run like a government, I'll know this project is doomed!). An increase of spending should be dictated by the requirements of the project at that point. This is the warning sign that is most disconcerting when it comes to CRI. The feature list has grown as fast as the income (especially when you consider that every new ship is, technically, a "feature"). The cost of feature creep is never exactly quantifiable, precisely because the changes to present project requirements can never be fully predicted. So scaling is always more expensive than you predict. Always.

Let's take the new $350 ship (that can be pimped out to a $900 one). Each of the accessory pods is also a promise of new features. What good is a "research" pod if research doesn't exist as part of the game mechanics? Can a robust mechanic for research be implemented with only the funds collected for the pods? How much of previously allocated funds will need to be migrated to the "research" mechanics? And if no additional funds are used, isn't that pod a rip-off (since it has no mechanical function)?

Folks with experience on large design projects will recognize the danger signs of expenditure expansion. You should only be spending now what is absolutely necessary now for the features you have now. Any other money is wasted. This is doubly true for monies spent to "ramp-up" production of future features (as the preliminary funding never produces what is necessary... since that is always an unknown). And CRI screams waste at this point (seeing as how they don't have a single completed system/module in their whole game).

Yeah. This ship has already sailed... sailed and hit an iceberg, sunk, been lost for decades, found, raised from the ocean floor, and had a crappy movie made about it starring Leonardo DeCrappio. There's no audience remaining for this, really...

So, they are going to recreate the best part of the best movie for us: the podracing from Episode One. What a great idea!

Do I even need a sarcasm tag?

And had you released it in the 80's, I'd be drooling. In the 21st century, however, not so much...

crumbs wrote on Sep 5, 2015, 12:18:
Waaa waaaa waaa!

Hahahaha. Always makes my day seeing all the boys on blues news whine and cry over this game.

Waaaaa! Not going to be released until 2017 waaaa! It's a scam waaaa!

While secretly I'm sure most of the boys here would gladly pay 40 bucks to be part of it... but don't make enough much money living in mama's basement.

Rofl

I pity you guys. Really, I do.

See, every time I hear an SC fanboi exalt the game (that doesn't exist), every time I hear your hyperbolic praise for pie-in-the-sky promises, every time I read your cheerleading that "This is gonna be the best game ever! It's gonna be in the dictionary as the picture next to the definition of 'best game ever'! It's gonna be the game equivalent of watching Chris Roberts riding a Rhino that is dry-humping a pirate while on the back of a ninja! It's gonna be life-changing!" all I feel is sad.

'Cause, see, if you really had faith in CRI, you wouldn't need to front. You wouldn't need to attack the "disbelievers." You could sit back and chuckle, secure in the knowledge that we're all going to be wrong.

The fact that you can't sit back speaks volumes. You have to attack those who criticize, because otherwise the doubt that you already have might rise to the forefront. You have to attack, because otherwise you might actually have to stop and look at the signs that this game is in trouble. You have to silence the critics, otherwise you might start to suspect that you really are a sad, duped, rube who got fleeced by a slick sales pitch.

So I understand. You're not attacking the doubters to save them. You're attacking to try and save yourself. It's pathetic, really, but I do feel for you...

Red 5 standing by...

All fighters lock S-foils into CONSOLITIS position!

I'm conflicted. Star Citizen is the biggest ponzi scheme since Social Security, but if Polygon stated that fire was hot I'd build a bonfire to run my refrigerator. So who in the hell do I trust in this clusterf...

SlimRam wrote on Aug 30, 2015, 15:18:
I will have the first virtual wedding there with a 12 year old boy from Vietnam that swore to me that he was a female super model.

Well, in his defense, 12 year old boys and supermodels weigh about the same...

What the actual f**k! What is a "social module," and how does it relate to battling space fighters?

|RaptoR| wrote on Aug 26, 2015, 22:30:
Cutter, I work in the industry. I am well aware of the reality of things here.

Actually, that's why you have less knowledge than you think. The very worst place to be to understand how people from outside view the inside is ... inside. Being inside the industry will change your perceptions to the point where I doubt you understand the consumer very much at all. That's the great hurdle for every market, including video game production. The last person to ask about justice is the person who has just been robbed, and the last person to ask about video game consumers is the video game producer...

|RaptoR| wrote on Aug 26, 2015, 21:08:
The hate runs thick on Bluesnews
I think the big thing that people constantly bring up are his comments on piracy and console exclusivity. I can see that being polarizing, I guess. As an industry veteran, I have a different perspective (because it has a direct and very real financial impact to myself personally). I respect both sides, but I think that the PC gamer crowd tends to ignore statistics and work off of gut instincts... but the numbers just don't support it.

Cliffs comments on piracy carry a significant amount of truth -- "PC master race" folks are adamant about denying it, but piracy is real on the PC and it very much so makes developers think twice about targeting the PC with a traditional model. Our multiplatform games utilize back-end analytics services to help us understand play styles and habits of our users so we can understand which modes are popular and which aren't. The data is anonymous, but it does allow us to very easily see legitimately licensed copies vs pirated copies and the numbers are absolutely staggering. Consoles and mobile have an incredibly low percentage, but PC? 80%+ of connected users are not using a genuine license. We don't rely on any DRM, either.

Why do you think DLC is so universally pushed nowadays?
Why do you think that subscription based games are mostly on the PC?

These are not coincidences.

See, this proves my point. The legitimate customer doesn't care what pirates are or are not doing... because we aren't pirates. What we care about is how we are affected by companies' policies and game development trends. When a single player game requires always-on internet connection for no mechanics-related reason (see the vocalized issues with Diablo 3, Sim City, et al. on their release), it inconveniences me, the legitimate consumer. When F2P forces me to pay way more than a standalone price for a game in order to enjoy the game to its fullest, it inconveniences me, the legitimate consumer. I don't care that this is what a company wants to do to try and prevent pirates... that's your job, not mine. I want to enjoy the game, and when your policies inhibit that, you won't get my money (you aren't entitled to my money ... that's the real entitlement issue in gaming today).

When company policy hurts the legitimate consumer to benefit the company's interests (especially when, like most anti-piracy measures, it is doing so to inhibit folks who would never buy the game in the first place), consumers aren't going to like it. When, like Cliff, you then verbally poop on your consumers (the ones that made you successful in the first place), you are going to get a strong negative reaction. If you don't understand this, then you have just confirmed that you are in too deep to understand your consumers at all...

Creston wrote on Aug 28, 2015, 16:06:
Gotta admit that it looks very, very nice. Someone pick this up and play it already, then let us know.

Jaguar8's review/play video is linked above (and I trust him pretty well). Looks solid, but maybe not magnificent. I'll probably pick it up once I stop shadowrunning...

Yeah, 'cause what the world needs now is another F2P shooter (like I need a hole in my head)...

Apologies to Cracker...

Kxmode wrote on Aug 25, 2015, 11:42:

Julian Delphiki wrote on Aug 25, 2015, 08:58:
Obviously you yourself are fixated on SC, though you have a much more negative approach than most. Mr. Black Knight

#BlackKnightsMatter

OK, thread's over! Everybody out of the pool! Out!

Shineyguy wrote on Aug 24, 2015, 10:12:
"And through that, we’re going to subpoena and depose every single key person"

Because that's what they need; another delay to development.

Please...

Chris Roberts will be positively giddy at this. At this point, there is no endgame for him. Like any other ponzi scheme, funding yesterday with today's money, Chris Roberts has no way to bail on SC without accepting the blame. When the musical chairs money runs out, CR will be left without a chair to sit in. He'd be totally at fault.

Now, he'll get to blame the time and expense of the lawyers, etc., to weasel out of the blame for SC's crash. "See, SC would have been awesome, but {insert grumbling here}..."

Heck, this is the biggest favor that Derek Smart could have done Chris Roberts. I'm beginning to think that there is collusion between the two, because this is so perfect for CR to dodge the fallout from SC...