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 Derek Smart

Real Name Derek Smart   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname dsmart
Email Concealed by request
Description oldest #indiedev fossil. was indie before it was a thing. science & sci-fi aficionado, gamer, game dev, writer, entrepreneur, the Battlecruiser guy
Homepage http://www.dereksmart.com
Signed On Feb 26, 2001, 14:53
Total Comments 1043 (Pro)
User ID 9141
 
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 > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
88. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 4, 2018, 13:14  dsmart 
 
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 4, 2018, 12:45:
dsmart wrote on Sep 4, 2018, 10:15:
I have released over 19 games across a 30 yr history.
Now we're getting down to the marrow of the bone.
Of course any gamer with half a brain, much less a full one, would be hard pressed to name 4 games you've cranked out during your prolific career (1 every 1.57 years). I guess you never heard the term "Quality over Quantity."

Smart, you sound and act like a petty, bitter little man.
Enjoy your 10 minutes of fame.


Since you have no purpose in any thread but to engage in petty, meaningless attacks, while not contributing anything, welcome to my ignore list.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
86. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 4, 2018, 10:15  dsmart 
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
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.

I never claimed ANY of the above. Yet, you keep parroting it as if I did. That's deflection.

I have been CONSISTENT in what I've been saying. That being YOU guys - and the "legal experts" - had claimed that the lawsuit was bs. If that was the case, the MtD would have succeeded in its ENTIRETY. And that has EVERYTHING to do with the merits of a case. If the claims had NO merits, then it would NEVER have survived an MtD. That's how that works. That's what an MtD is designed to do.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
A normal person doesn't have half a brain, they have a full one. I'm starting to see your confusion.

I see that one flew over your head. Makes sense.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
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.

That's hilarious. You ARE aware that the judge ruled that RSI was in fact party to the GLA, right? So you're saying you and the "legal experts" know more about the law and common sense than a FEDERAL JUDGE?! LOL!!

The definition of "GAME" already passed the bar for litigation. If it didn't, the judge would have granted the dismissal of that claim. Instead, she agreed with the reading of the GLA and let it stand.

Further, you don't know what "evidence" means because the ONLY evidence for this is already IN THE GLA. What? You think there's some other supa sekret contract hiding somewhere? LOL!!

That you think it's "easily dismissed" is the height of ignorance because if that was the case, it wouldn't have survived an MtD, as that's the FIRST bar of entry that ANY claim has to survive in order to proceed.

Jesus, it's almost as if you're just ignoring even the most basic of facts, while clinging onto straws.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
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.

Again, you're displaying ignorance. The law DOES NOT CARE about the value of the license. They care about the ILLICIT PROFIT of a contractual breach. It doesn't matter if what you stole cost $5 or $15. If you sold it for $500, that's the claim. You know there's a LEGAL bar for all such things, right? e.g. read up on the difference between a charge of "theft" and "felony theft" or "battery" vs "aggravated battery" etc.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
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.

You're wrong in ALL of the above. And I'm certain that either you didn't read the GLA, you didn't understand it, or you're being willfully ignorance of the facts. Or you're just lying (which is always a possibility with you guys).

Section 7.3, p12

Reverse Technology Transfer. Annually during the Game’s development period, and again
upon publication of the final Game, Licensee shall provide Crytek with any bug fixes, and
optimizations made to the CryEngine's original source code files (including CryEngine tools
provided by Crytek ) as a complete compilable version. All such technology outlined in this
Section and provided by Licensee to Crytek pursuant to this section (collectively the
“Reverse Technology Transfer”) shall be the sole and exclusive property of Licensee. Given
that such Reverse Technology Transfer is the sole and exclusive property of Licensee,
Licensee hereby grants Crytek a non-exclusive, royalty-free and perpetual license to such
Reverse Technology Transfer (“Reverse Technology License”) solely for the purposes of ( 1)
using the Reverse Technology Transfer internally at Crytek, (2) incorporating the Reverse
Technology Transfer in future releases of the CryEngine and (3) distributing the CryEngine,
with the embedded Reverse Technology Transfer to third parties without restriction and
without payment of any additional fees or royalties to Licensee. Crytek acknowledges that it
does not and will not obtain any rights in the Game itself.


See the word "annually"? What do you think that means? I'll wait.

Section 8, p13

Term. The Term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date. Unless sooner
terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof, the Term shall remain in force for the
Commercial Life of the Game.

Termination. Each Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or the license grants
with respect to the Game prior to the end of the Term immediately upon written notice
delivered to the other party if, at any time: (a) the other party is in material breach of any
term, condition or covenant of this Agreement and fails to cure such breach within thirty (30)
days after its receipt of written notice thereof by the other party; or (b) the other party (i)
becomes insolvent; or (ii) admits in writing its insolvency or inability to pay its debts or
perform its obligations as they mature; or (iii) makes or attempts an assignment for the
benefit of creditors; or (iv) files a petition for reorganization, readjustment or rearrangement of
its business or affairs under any laws or governmental regulations relating to bankruptcy or
insolvency, or is adjudicated bankrupt or if a receiver is appointed for such other party and such
action is not dismissed within sixty (60) days. In addition, Crytek shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement (x ) in the event it ceases generally to provide the CryEngine to its
customers, or (y) pursuant to Sections 6.1.2 (iii).

Effect of Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, the license shall immediately and
automatically end and Licensee shall immediately take the following measures: (a) Licensee
shall return the CryEngine and any and all material related thereto to Crytek (including all
data carriers and documentation); and (b) Licensee shall delete and/or destroy any and all
copies of the CryEngine, whether in object code or source code, in whole or in part,
permanent or temporary; and (c) Licensee shall promptly provide to Crytek a statement
signed by an authorized officer of Licensee that any and all material regarding the CryEngine
have been returned to Crytek and any and all copies of the CryEngine have been deleted
and/or destroyed. Sections 6.3 and 7 shall survive any termination of this Agreement, as well
as any other provisions which by their terms or meaning are intended to survive. Termination
of this Agreement shall not relieve the Parties of any obligation accruing prior to such
termination.


Please point to the part where switching engines - even if they DID do that - terminates the GLA.

And while you're at it, please point to the part of the CIG response and their MtD where they claim that the GLA had in fact terminated, thus meaning that the lawsuit itself had no merit as a result of that.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
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.

OK, I'm convinced that you're an ignorant fool. The whole point of "by law" isn't meaningless. It's about jurisdiction and findings of fact. How else do you think that the disputing parties will be able to seek a legal remedy? That's the whole point and why Crytek is using CIG. And in doing so, were able to convince a FEDERAL JUDGE that 5/6 of their claims had enough merit to GO TO TRIAL.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
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.

No apologies needed.

And you're still WRONG because she did NO SUCH thing. Jesus, I even posted both excerpts of her ruling. It's almost as if you either don't understand English, lack reading comprehension skills, or you're just ignorant and/or arguing in BAD FAITH.

She excerpted a case precedent ruling which claimed that the definition of "exclusive" as explained by Crytek didn't pass the smell test because of how contract law interprets contracts based on either the actual language, or when there is a dispute, the intent of the contract. FYI, this is a good example of how claims don't survive an MtD; which is why I've been explaining to you for DAYS now, but you choose to ignore it. She killed it. Which means it's not going to be a valid claim during the lawsuit UNLESS Crytek - through discovery - can provide evidence (recordings, emails, paperwork etc) that shows the INTENT of the contract was for it to be an exclusive. Then Crytek can - again - amend their complaint, thus proving to the judge that the claim passed the muster for the GLA implying that it was to be an exclusive.

She then excerpted CIG's own use of the word "absurd" which, btw, is came from CIG's response to the lawsuit.

The goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the parties’ mutual intent at
the time the contract was formed. Thor Seafood Corp. v. Supply Mgmt. Servs., 352 F. Supp. 2d
1128, 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2005). The language of the contract alone governs the parties’ intention
and the contract’s meaning, so long as the language is clear, explicit, and does not involve an
absurdity. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1638, 1639, see Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 1,
18, 19 (1995) (“Courts will not strain to create ambiguity where none exists.”).


She wasn't "siding" with CIG. She was citing case law, as well as pointing out how CIG described it; hence her indicating that she didn't cite the whole thing.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
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.

Wow. Just wow.

Your "legal experts" gave the MtD a 60/40 chance of "getting dismissed in its entirety". And you somehow interpret that to mean "there was a high chance that portions of the lawsuit would continue"?

ps: That's not even about math btw, it's about common sense logic.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
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

Nice deflection there. NONE of that supports your claims about Crytek's penchant for the contractual breach that you claimed, and to which I was responding. And NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with Crytek's contract licensing practices - which is what we were arguing about in that instance.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
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?

NONE of which is relevant. Stop deflecting.

And I am not asking anyone (least of all you, who I'm just making look stupid) to take me seriously. That would imply that I care enough about what people think or that I would seek to encroach on their ability to deduce for themselves what's going on. Most people aren't stupid. At least not intentionally. That's all there is to it.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
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.

Nice try. It took you long enough. The dog whistle from your cohort a few comments ago, appears to have worked.

I can go to any search engine - right now - and put in the game of my game, and the name of Star Citizen, then see the results of which one is a "massive laughing stock" or "maybe even a scam". You should try it. When you're done, look up the difference between a crowd-funded game, and a self-funded one. Get back to me on that, as I'm sure it will be hilarious.

ps: I have released over 19 games across a 30 yr history. CIG/RSI have yet to build a SINGLE game after 7 yrs and $192M of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 2018, 12:11.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
85. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 4, 2018, 09:17  dsmart 
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 13:27:
dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:17:
It's never - ever - getting finished. Like ever.

I think that's true of the PU. However, I think we'll see SQ42 in a year or two though.

I see a lot of people saying this. I just don't subscribe to that faith. Given that they're still behind on core tech, and considering the incredibly high production bars for games now, I didn't see anything in the SQ42 vertical slice from Dec 2017 that leads me to believe that we'd see anything of that game - ever.

Even if they manage to rush something out, it will most likely end up being bog standard fare that you could get on Steam for $19.99. Except backers would have paid for a Gold chest, and ended up with a cardboard box.

Who am I kidding? I just don't see SQ42 ever coming out. And most certainly not as was pitched back in 2012. It's time has passed.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
82. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 3, 2018, 11:50  dsmart 
 
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 11:01:
Currently in CLOSED beta.
Last Developer Status Update: February 2018
nuff said

lol

Nice try with the low hanging fruit. I'm the one selling JPEG futures, and not a bonus DLC for a project that actually works and is implemented. Yeah - OK.

Not that truth ever gets in the way of bs though.

It's funny when you have an indie dev working on multiple games with his own money; and you try to - hilariously - compare that to a company that has basically scammed $192M from gamers without ever developing either of the promised products.

Don't worry though, I can see how attacking me and/or my games, makes Star Citizen totally a game that's coming out and will be great!

 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
80. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 3, 2018, 10:55  dsmart 
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
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.

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.

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.

FYI MtD are used to end cases ALL THE TIME and are very effective in doing that. That's what they were designed to do so as not to clog up the justice system with frivolous suits without merit. Read up on it when you take time off your strawman arguments.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
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.

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

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
1) The judge called Crytek's interpretation of exclusive as 'absurd'

That's patently false. The words "absurdity" and "absurd" which appear in her MtD ruling had NOTHING to do with her opinion of the "exclusivity" claim. wow - you're really digging deep aren't you?

p7. Here she is quoting/citing from the case law she excerpted:

The goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the parties’ mutual intent at
the time the contract was formed. Thor Seafood Corp. v. Supply Mgmt. Servs., 352 F. Supp. 2d
1128, 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2005). The language of the contract alone governs the parties’ intention
and the contract’s meaning, so long as the language is clear, explicit, and does not involve an
absurdity. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1638, 1639, see Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 1,
18, 19 (1995) (“Courts will not strain to create ambiguity where none exists.”).


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)).


theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
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.

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.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
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.

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.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
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.

That's hilarious on a million levels.

- The value ($2M) of the license has NOTHING to do with contractual breach of contract, copyright infringement etc. Those monetary damages are calculated based on both the "revenue gains" from the unlawful activity, as well as damages for actually doing it. That's why Crytek WILL ask for and WILL get access to the CIG financials through discovery because they are entitled to them in order to determine how CIG gained from the alleged illegal activity. Go ahead, look it up.

- If CIG hadn't violated the contract they signed, thus forcing Crytek to take legal action, there would be NO lawsuit. That you think it's OK for a company to ignore breaches in a contract that it executed, is a tenuous position - at best. It's not even White Knighting at this point; it's blatant ignorance.

- There are MANY companies doing business with Crytek, how many have they sued, or sued them over their contracts? Don't bother, I can tell you: ZERO. So to come with up "if this is how it behaves" is, again, ignorance that goes beyond White Knighting.

- 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.

Forget about the fact that a company on the very of BK doesn't go out and hire the best and most expensive law firms in the WORLD.

Should I mention that Hunt, their game which isn't even out of EA has sold almost a million units?

What about the fact that Crytek consolidated their assets and sold some IP to the likes of my.com etc? Shall I go on?

FYI: You are aware that F42 group (UK/GER), as of Dec 2017 financials, is insolvent (this is the part where you Google what means), right?

In conclusion....

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. And of course the likes of you being a Star Citizen White Knight makes a ton of sense, all things considered.

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.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
79. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 3, 2018, 10:17  dsmart 
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:42:
dsmart wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 20:54:
It's 7 yrs + $192M later, and not even 20% completed.

You are being extremely generous here. I'd say we can safely scratch that '0'. It's maybe 2% finished, IF that.

The star systems are a huge chunk of the content and we still have only a single one that is not finished. They promised 100 star systems at launch (per the $6m stretch goal). This dictates we're at less than 1% delivery (one star system, not finished) in that regard alone.

Aside from a very unfinished game engine that is still missing many promised features and/or support for certain hardware and technologies, the vast majority of the gameplay systems are a complete no-show, many, many ships (or their third or fourth rework before they have even been added to the game) are nowhere near finished, the infrastructure (i.e. their server mesh) is obviously also nowhere near ready to accommodate any of these yet to be developed gameplay systems or to allow for travel between star systems and so on.
The database systems are far from finished. The game only has very barebone persistence at this point.
And let's not even get started on peripheral unfinished stuff like the integration of the game with external services and stuff like that.

Yeah... 2% is generous. Your 20% is ... well, have you secretly turned into a SC fanboi Derek?

Yeah, I know, right? We tend to use the empirical values.

Fact is that it doesn't matter if it's 2% or 20% because an unfinished game is still an unfinished game, and nobody will care what percentage unfinished it is.

It's never - ever - getting finished. Like ever.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
73. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 2, 2018, 19:35  dsmart 
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 19:14:
As I pointed out, neither said it would be dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss but that the claims were weak.

Nice backtracking there, pal

Nothing has changed with the court's ruling.

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.

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.

Except for the part where, since I was the one who broke the news on the lawsuit, and have written SEVERAL articles about it since Dec 2017? In fact, there is a "Crytek v CIG/RSI" section on my forum dedicated specifically to the case, and which contains links to all my articles about each aspect of the case, each filing etc. You think I'm going to repeat them here for you? LOL!!! Dude, just click - and read. They are all in chrono order even.

But anyway:

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.

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.

Except that's FALSE; and I already provided links to what I stated, what they stated, how they were wrong etc. You can ignore it all you want, I don't care because you're already arguing in bad faith; and I'm just here to keep throwing it all in your face.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have been posted facts. That you choose to ignore them, while engaging in circular arguments, is your problem, not mine. My guess is that people who give a shit long enough to read this exchange, can make up their own minds about the merits and facts of what you and I are both arguing about.

I'd rather shove a screwdriver down my japseye than visit your website.

Right. So don't blame me because you're ignorant of the things I've written, THEN try to claim otherwise.

Which is precisely what you're doing. You're ignoring the arguments and FACTS, by engaging in strawman and circular arguments because, like the train-wreck that is Star Citizen, it's as if you expect those things to become true by virtue of your repeating them while perched on a shaky flawed stance.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
69. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 2, 2018, 18:31  dsmart 
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 16:04:
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.

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.

Heck, even in his follow-up video, AFTER correcting (see link below) himself after I called him out on his bs on Twitter and on YT, French went and gave it 60/40 chance of success.

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=27.msg7228;topicseen#msg7228

https://twitter.com/UnsafestSpace/status/954463514793578496

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=127.msg7141;topicseen#msg7141

ps: My website forum has a search function. Try it!

pps: Yes, I watched all the videos about this that BOTH French and Lessor put out. Did you?

 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
64. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 2, 2018, 15:01  dsmart 
 
Not gonna respond to any of that nonsensical word salad because circular arguments, especially those done in bad faith, aren't my thing.

But I AM gonna tilt my head back and lol at this :

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 14:33:
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....
He pointed out the judge's mistake in letting some claims past but that will just be corrected at the next stage

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.

ps. Thanks for the Sun afternoon lols.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
60. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 2, 2018, 07:56  dsmart 
 
I don't even know where to begin. But since you are being uncharacteristically civil - for once - I'll indulge.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 06:34:
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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course it's a fact that they haven't collapsed in terms of funding because they kept finding ways to raise money - ABOVE AND BEYOND - what they stated they would need ($65M) to complete the game they over-scoped.

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?

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 06:34:
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.

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.

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.

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.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 06:34:
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.

It's funny that it's only now that you and some of those loons on Reddit are saying things like this. Things that most of us have been saying for YEARS, but were attacked because we didn't "believe".

And if you guys haven't figured out yet that the ONLY way that they can keep raising money is by lying and monetizing scope creep, then by all means, please keep giving him money because for us, the end would be that much more hilarious.

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.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 06:34:
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.

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.

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.

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.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 06:34:
CIG still has the ability to file a further Motion to Dismiss to address Crytek's updated claims in the Second Amended Complaint.

They could try because that's how lawsuits work. So I fail to see your point. If you're saying that they're going to somehow get 2.4 - which the judge herself pointed out, and which NEITHER side had even contested before her notes were public - thrown out in a new MtD, I don't even know if I should start laughing now, or just save it for later after they try and fail.

FYI, they have until end of next week to file any such motion.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 06:34:
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.

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.

I remember a few years back when we were all arguing the Epic v Silicon Knights lawsuit. Look how THAT turned out. And Epic had even less damaging claims than Crytek.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 06:34:
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.

And you would know either way, how? I can't WAIT to hear this.

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.

This comment was edited on Sep 2, 2018, 12:01.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
58. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 2, 2018, 06:57  dsmart 
 
Drayth wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 21:49:
How do you know they're "freaking out"? Do you get to hang out with them? Wire tapped their office? Or some totally legit, 'no, really!', absolutely, for reals insider gave you irrefutable proof that his roommate, who's friends with a neighbor of a QA tester applicant overheard this?

If you were actually paying attention to the lawsuit, you would know these things. That's we do, so you don't have to.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
54. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 21:24  dsmart 
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 21:07:
dsmart wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 20:54:
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 gotta make up your mind -- you can't tell me their funding numbers are all made up and then turn around and use their numbers to support your case...

We've always stated that they're not accurate by any stretch of the imagination. But regardless, they CLAIM that's what they've raised, so THAT is the number we have to use.

What good would it do if I used a totally made up number? I could very well say $58M and it will be just as accurate as them claiming $192M. Why? Because there is no independent auditing of the numbers.

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.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
52. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 20:54  dsmart 
 
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.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
49. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 20:04  dsmart 
 
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.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
23. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 08:53  dsmart 
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 08:45:
Subscribers? There are people paying a monthly fee for SC currently? WTF?

Yes. And it's hilarious.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/subscriptions
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
21. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 07:57  dsmart 
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 06:33:
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.

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.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
20. Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 1, 2018, 07:55  dsmart 
 
It's all about money.

Once again, he planned something that he blew the budget on. Then he tried to get backers to pay for the excess. That's all there is to it.

Had he not reversed, it would have tainted the event from this point, and right on to Oct 10th. He had to make a choice - and it had nothing to do with "listening" to backers.

I like how he managed to throw a sale pitch right in there too.

http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6601/
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG/Crytek Lawsuit Proceeds
108. Re: CIG/Crytek Lawsuit Proceeds Aug 18, 2018, 09:47  dsmart 
 
Beamer wrote on Aug 17, 2018, 22:24:
3) Isn't it odd that Derek took money for a game back in 2012 as well, one that hasn't seen the light of day and hasn't had an update posted to its website in 6 months, is so angry that SC is taking so long to come out?

Yes, it's really quite odd. Funny how most devs who are working on a complex project, and don't have updates, tend not to post updates. It's almost as if they don't owe anyone anything, and are just focusing on their work instead of posting lies as updates in order to appease the masses while taking money from them.

tbh, I was disappointed that you didn't go for the standard "LOD is no longer on Steam" statement. Did the script change when I wasn't paying attention?

Beamer wrote on Aug 17, 2018, 22:24:
is so angry that SC is taking so long to come out?

Except for the part where I don't care about and it never was about that; and I already know that it's never - EVER - coming out?
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG/Crytek Lawsuit Proceeds
107. Re: CIG/Crytek Lawsuit Proceeds Aug 18, 2018, 09:36  dsmart 
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 07:59:
Guys, we need to step outside because this is just a make-out session between Derek and Kxmode. They're going to start fellating each other next.

dsmart wrote on Aug 17, 2018, 17:23:
It's a good thing that your hate boner for me is more logical than your nonsensical legal prowess (you're clueless).
Your entire career is based on hating Chris Roberts and spreading lies about him, his family and his projects. You could have been content putting out shitty indie games but instead you chose a life of infamy by attacking Chris Roberts for producing better games than you. And given your propensity for lying I can only take it as a compliment that you would call me clueless.

OK, it's Sat morning, and I have one or two more post left in me for this thread before I go write up about CIG's latest court filing.

So let's go...

Your infantile abusive language and personal attacks are meaningless, say more about you than they do about your incessant drivel; and are patently a sign of weakness and an inferiority complex.

It's interesting that in the face of all evidence to the contrary, you and your ilk are perfectly OK repeating the same lies and drivel as if the number of repetitions will magically will them into existence. You should lay off the 'shrooms.

I have spent a career spanning almost three decades designing, developing and releasing a long list of video games which a group (large enough to keep me doing them, unlike many who have come and gone) have kept buying. So no, I never had an altercation with, let alone spent a career based on "hating Christ Roberts". But don't let facts and extensive research get in the way of your delusions.

Chris Roberts immediate family (wife Sandi and brother Erin) and inner circle of friends (Ortwin, Elms et al), are proven liars and scam artists. I didn't manufacture any of that. Throughout history, from the Ascendant Pictures/Kostner fiasco, to the Gizmondo debacle, and now the Star Citizen scam, it's all there. And it's not just me saying it. One trip to any search engine is all that it takes.

While Chris was lying up a storm in the pursuit of money, and his wife was lying up a storm about qualifications, expertise etc in the pursuit of money, and his brother was lying up a storm about everything in support of his brother's on-going scam, even as they took backer money from the project to buy themselves out, those sort of things wouldn't strike like-minded people like you as odd. Of course not. Because in the face of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" decisions, common sense and facts never get in the way of delusion and lies.

That you think me writing a single technical blog is about "attacking Chris Roberts for producing better games" and not about questioning a disaster I saw coming a mile way, says more about your frame of mind, than the reality that we actually live in. But yeah, I was totally the one who issued a press release lying about the events surrounding my exit from the project. According to you guys, I am a "nobody", but somehow, time and time again, Chris Roberts and his dwindling gang of willing enablers just can't stop talking about or attacking me for voicing opinions which are in fact my own. It's almost as if I was the last person they wanted on their case, and shining a bright Red neon lamp.

That you think the people who read that 2015 blog, then made up their own minds about its veracity are somehow part of a collective, says more about your abject stupidity, than it does the reality that we actually live in.

That you think after THREE YEARS since I wrote that blog, that a man who got over $190M of FREE MONEY can't even deliver 20% of what was promised, let alone ANYTHING that resembles what was originally promised in 2012, is somehow absolved of any/all responsibility, but I'm the bad guy for pursuing it, says more about your persecution complex than it does about the reality that we actually live in.

That you think your opinions - regardless of merit - are somehow the cornerstone of reason and sensibility, despite being, for years, littered with personal attacks, lies, and abhorrent conduct, are worthy of note to the normal free-thinking person, says more about you being adept at ignoring actual facts and reasoning, than it does the reality that we actually live in.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 07:59:
Don't worry, there's still more time to spread rumours about Chris Roberts' marriage or expose details of his children on the internet. I mean, that's totally what decent people do. You're totally not a scumbag at all.

That would have been twice as funny if you had actually thought it through. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a lie, it's never - ever - going to be true.

You have to face the reality, and come to grips with the fact that you - and your ilk - just don't matter. You will forever be just another sad anon on a website forum spewing hate-riddled drivel because it makes you feel better about a life less ordinary. I'm still here. I'm Derek Smart. And there's nothing you can do about it. Except maybe cry a little.

This comment was edited on Aug 18, 2018, 09:48.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG/Crytek Lawsuit Proceeds
92. Re: CIG/Crytek Lawsuit Proceeds Aug 17, 2018, 19:23  dsmart 
 
Kxmode wrote on Aug 17, 2018, 19:11:
Understood. So it's about digging and finding the truth. Which, for a project like Star Citizen with as much money as have been given to it, the truth is extremely important. Chris Roberts should be as transparent as possible with everyone, most especially the backers.

Yes - precisely. Plus they sent a horde after me because I dared to question the project. Thus picking a fight with that one guy who never met a fight he didn't like. The rest is history.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1043 Comments. 53 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