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 1077 (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 > Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash
132. Re: removed Feb 1, 2019, 16:45  dsmart 
 
Prez wrote on Feb 1, 2019, 08:20:
Sepharo wrote on Feb 1, 2019, 04:00:
Kxmode wrote on Feb 1, 2019, 03:38:
jdreyer wrote on Feb 1, 2019, 03:07:
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 31, 2019, 12:37:
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Jan 31, 2019, 14:15.

Goddammit. How am I supposed to read your forking shirt if it gets removed???

I assume you have watched all of The Good Place. If not, what's wrong with you? .

I feel like that would be an awesome Blue's News shirt! A navy color shirt with the red *REMOVED*

Haha that's a good idea actually.
Nobody would know what it means, but it's a perfect shirt for this community lol

It would have to have Cutter's avatar pic on the back.

I agree. Then underneath would be the lettering of what I see in some posts here: "To view this user's posts click on the username"
 
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 > Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash
119. Re: Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash Jan 31, 2019, 19:23  dsmart 
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 31, 2019, 16:33:
In the long run, I mean, Epic needs users for this thing to live. It needs users to keep investing in it, and it needs users to keep publishers interested.


Things Epic does not have:
Users
Anything more than the most bare customer support (including forums)
Cloud saves
Anything to let you interact with other players
Time to build all of these things that took Valve 15 years
Money to blow on something extremely expensive that may be pointless

Things Epic does have:
Control of their fee structure (to undercut Steam)
Enough money to bring some timed exclusives (to draw consumers)


Over time, it could grow to something great. It won't do it without traffic and publishers, though, and it's impossible to compete on Steam normally right now.

I don't see much benefit to consumers, even over time, in pricing. Publishers control the pricing. A movie is generally the same on Apple as Amazon as Google as YouTube. Competition between platforms didn't lower prices (but competition in products did.0

Oh you made a list. That's so cute.

This is a REAL 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 > Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash
118. Re: Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash Jan 31, 2019, 19:21  dsmart 
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 31, 2019, 16:11:

What game? Who is Deepsilver?

All I care about is that DS posted here

LOL!! I pop in once in awhile, especially if it's about Star Citizen or as in this case, I get invoked via the The Signal :p
 
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 > Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash
117. Re: Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash Jan 31, 2019, 19:19  dsmart 
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 31, 2019, 11:14:
I read Derek's article from top to bottom and I find that I do not disagree with him.

At the end of the day, this is a business decision and all business decisions are driven by "How much of X investment reaps the greatest profit? Y? Z? A? Whichever is greatest, that's what is chosen."

You realize that was the gist of my thread, right? So what exactly are you disagreeing with?
 
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 > Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash
100. Re: Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash Jan 31, 2019, 10:18  dsmart 
 
Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2019, 10:04:
I knew it!

hehe. I have to admit, I was following the thread since the news posted. But since I had my own thread on Twitter, I was just reading this one without needed to comment. Then I saw the gag, and just HAD to oblige!
 
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 > Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash
99. Re: Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash Jan 31, 2019, 10:16  dsmart 
 
Creston wrote on Jan 31, 2019, 09:46:
Slick wrote on Jan 30, 2019, 17:58:
And why on earth do you assume Epic paid them off to get Exodus on their store?

Because

A) That's how these kind of deals work.
B) The math likely doesn't work out otherwise.

They know full well that they're going to lose sales by not being on Steam. Partially from people who refuse to buy anywhere else, and partially just from the fact that the Epic store has nowhere near the reach and registered customers that Steam does.

They make an educated guess (or have done market research) to see how many sales they lose, versus the extra money they retain from going to the Epic store. Since they lowered the price by 10 bucks for US customers, and they only make $2 extra on a sale now, they either have to think they'll lose very very few sales, or they've got a bag of cash from Epic that's the equivalent of X number of sales (or possibly a guarantee that if they don't sell X number, Epic will make up the difference.)

Nobody's going to willfully exclude the biggest store in the PC gaming world without some kind of backup.

These kinds of deals have been made many times before.

Yup. Exclusives like this always come with some financial guarantee. No way in hell they would risk the ire, bad faith vibes from Valve, depreciated sales etc - just to move over for free.

As I mentioned in my Tweet thread, you get a bit more than just money.

So if you think about it, assuming you get the nod from Epic, this is what you end up with:

1) More money (higher royalties)

2) Better discovery of your game

3) No toxic community bs to deal with

That's basically it. All of 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 > Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash
93. Re: Metro Exodus Epic Deal Sparks Backlash Jan 31, 2019, 08:50  dsmart 
 
I wrote a pretty lengthy thread about this yesterday morning.

Enjoy!
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
84. Re: Out of the Blue Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 27, 2019, 16:36  dsmart 
 
Drayth wrote on Jan 27, 2019, 16:17:
That's a screenshot of you pondering an engine switch, lol not announcing one.

I like how you completely ignored everything in the blog, including the excerpt; only to fall back to the I was just "pondering" part.

Everything else is from AFTER 12/23/16 when they announced it

You know that's how that works, right? What, you thought they would give me the heads up? You literally can't be serious because even my Tweet (while I was on vacation), speaks for itself.

Someone on Reddit even has a handy timeline. Read it.

I'm saying if you had sources you would have KNOWN before hand, that's a huge deal for the company.

They didn't switch. That's what my blog was primarily about. And of course Crytek sued them exactly one year later in Dec 2017.

(and even then you're known to go back revise / scrub posts after news breaks).

Ah yes, back to the lies (it's not an admirable fallback position) when you keep losing.

Keep trying though, something will eventually stick. I'm rooting for you.

You see, this is why I keep winning. You guys rely on lies, fabrication, deflection, attacks, and a healthy sprinkling of fairy dust. I just rely on facts and links. Even as 3.5 yrs later since you guys were harassing me over this train-wreck scam, there's still no fucking game. Of any kind. But yeah, keep focusing on me, man. LOL!!
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
82. Re: Out of the Blue Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 27, 2019, 15:48  dsmart 
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 27, 2019, 13:48:
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Somehow, I thought that was through the end of 2018.

Yeah, the finances go to end of 2017. They haven't released 2018 yet; so we don't know how bad things were during that year. Remember they got the $46m bailout money in May 2018 which is when the deal closed.
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
81. Re: Out of the Blue Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 27, 2019, 15:41  dsmart 
 
Drayth wrote on Jan 27, 2019, 14:47:
Oh god...
*snipped drivel*

This is too easy.

Where I predicted an engine switch, and specifically mentioned Lumberyard. On 04/04/2016. The screen shot and link even appears in my Irreconcilable Differences blog which I published on 12/27/2016

I will save you the trouble of reading the whole blog, but the screen shot of my post is in the middle, in case you don't have an SA account.

THE SWITCH
A few months ago, there were some insider rumblings that due to on-going challenges of building the game that Chris Roberts envisioned, an engine switch was inevitable. I had discarded that out of hand, much like I discarded the recent talk of a console port of the game because let’s face it, this far along into development, it would be pure madness to make such a switch. Not to mention the furor that it will cause with the backers who, while entrenched in Sunk Cost Fallacy, are still throwing money into a burning fire. And when you think about it, short of a custom engine built from the ground up, even with their major advancements, Unity5 would be a stretch. Not to mention the fact that it’s C# based. So only Unreal Engine 4 is actually capable of building something like Star Citizen; even with some design compromises. And it would be a major re-write either way.

Despite at least two sources claiming they were in fact switching to Lumberyard, I had forgotten about the engine switch nonsense until it sparked up again earlier this year. Seeing as some people (who I don’t even know, due to sources being anon) have reportedly been fired from CIG/RSI for being sources to myself and the media (e.g. see Kotaku’s recent slew of Star Citizen research articles, or The Escapist article from last year), I tend to now pick and chose what I share publicly. And with very few people close to something like an engine switch, it would be trivial for CIG/RSI to go on a witch hunt to seek out who was leaking (the most open development ever!) information to backers and the general public. So, my stance is that I’ll believe it when I hear more. I mean, with all their show broadcasts, no way they would keep something like that quiet, unless they are concerned about backer reaction.

In fact, this past April, I made a comment as part of what I believed – at the time – would be madness for them to even do. I said “I can’t wait to read the part where they decide to either port to Unity5 or to Lumberyard, Amazon’s version of CryEngine4. Not to mention CryEngine5 which is more advanced/modern than CryEngine4.”

Also, that blog is the one where I also updated it following my discussion/argument with Ben Parry on Frontier's forum.

Your turn.

ps: Nice of you to post already debunked bs from a previously closed hate sub. Why don't you have those discussions with the guys over here? I don't expect facts to deter you guys because after the POTUS has a bunch of nutjobs as supporters, as do Scientology, Flat Earthers etc. Hang onto that man, wait and see what comes next. It's glorious.
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
77. Re: Out of the Blue Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 27, 2019, 08:45  dsmart 
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 26, 2019, 21:56:
With millions still coming in per month through cloud funding, and $14 M in the bank, the could stretch this out for a year or more without making any changes at all before running out of money.

They don't have $14m in the bank. That was at the END of 2017. What gave you the impression that, 14 months later, that's still the case? Aside from the fact that regardless of what they had in the bank, it doesn't take into account liabilities (e.g. debt, loans etc).

I have no doubt that they will continue to limp to 2020, even if they didn't make the monthly numbers required for on-going operations. And that's because in May 2018, they raised $46m in reserve cash which I am quite certain isn't for "marketing". Also, no way of knowing how much of that cash still remains. At least not until they release the 2018 numbers.

 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
73. Re: Out of the Blue Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 26, 2019, 20:08  dsmart 
 
Drayth wrote on Jan 26, 2019, 10:13:
You didn't have access to their finances at the time you made the 90 days tops comment. You didn't have inside sources, you never once produced reliable information on anything.

That's how the whole "sources" thing works. I didn't pull it out of my ass. Which is what you do, as you throw poo at the wall trying to see what (nothing) sticks. Media and bloggers cite sources for stories all the time; but you don't see people clamoring for them to out their sources. But I guess Star Citizen is special, so there are no rules.

Star Marine, you stated wasn't going to happen up to weeks, if not days before it was released. You even died on a hill over that one.

False (again)

Star Marine, like SQ42, was on hold. Then they revived it. I wrote a whole blog about it, and there's even a dedicated website about it.

Same thing that we have now seen with SQ42.

Chris Roberts, June 30, 2015

STAR MARINE – A TIMELINE OF NOTEWORTHY EVENTS

Star Marine - Just A Game Mode

Then, out of the Blue, in a year of nearly ZERO progress, Star Marine miraculously showed up in the 2.6 release of 12/23/2016. The same build as the Lumberyard switch. And it was immediately DOA.

I also remember the debacle about it's release whereby it wasn't even in the original 2.6 release, though a bunch of nutjobs were arguing with me about it.

Lumberyard switch was news to you just like the rest of us.

Ah, that's so cute that you're still fishing. Nice try.

Star Citizen Lumberyard Switch, Derek Smart, 12/23/16

Lumberyard, for those interested, Chris Roberts, 12/25/16

Star Citizen - The Lumberyard Switch (it's bs)

You just throw out vague "..and that's nothing compared to what I know is coming next." in your blogs continuously, then when some big news drops you have something to point back to and claim you called it.

Yeah, and it's totally my fault that my vague hints end up coming true. I should probably try playing the lottery.

You blasted some news filed in the UK's financial report towards the end of the year before CIG made their official announcement and keep touting it as the story you broke. Sure.. but it wasn't from any secret contacts.

False (again)

The timeline of my posts regarding the financials, including links to my posts and Tweets, going all the way back to 2017*, are in my latest blog about the investment. Try reading it.

*
5) Financial Difficulties
Having raised about $112M at the time, without ever delivering an Alpha product, rumors started swirling that they were – again – facing financial difficulties. I said:

“Rumors and unconfirmed reports have been swirling for months that they’re running out of money to complete these projects, that they’ve been seeking external investor funding, trying to take advantage of tax credits etc. Even over in the UK, where reports like this come out, there is no evidence of them ever filing with the BFI if they did in fact take advantage of UK tax credits. If they’re out trying to raise investor money, it should come as a complete shock to anyone who thinks that $112M should have been enough to, you know, develop the game as promised. All the negativity surrounding the game, the shitty and toxic community that has sprung up around it; the aforementioned videos of a shitty tech-demo (aka CryEngine mod) everyone is now laughing (1, 2) at, are collectively likely to affect any efforts to raise money outside of a bunch of gullible whales firmly entrenched in sunk cost fallacy and cognitive dissonance. Here’s the thing, any investor or investment banker looking to invest in a project which, for five years, has raised over $112M (that we know of) for a project that the creator was originally asking $2M from the public, should be doing extensive research into all the execs associated with this project.”

Stop posturing like you're some amazing journalist. You're just obsessively coming over any public details you can get your hands on and building this "They're so fucked" (for 6+ years now) narrative you're trying to pretend like is real.

I never claimed to be a journalist. You must be confused. And yes, they have been fucked since 2015. To wit: they ran out of money, used all kinds of tricks to rip backers off, got a bailout - still ZERO games.

90 days tops implies that if everything continues as normal, there's nothing they can do to save their company (I could say Sony had 90 days tops.. but oh darn, people kept buying their products!) . That didn't happen.

You really are ignorant and obtuse. There's no other explanation. Do you think Sony is running on month-to-month funding? lmao!

You were wrong.

Whatever makes you sleep at night, man. Reality moves on. While you keep on your fishing expedition, with ZERO facts or cited sources, I will keep throwing reality and cite links your way. Don't get bored though because I can do this for as long as it takes. Bring 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 Spending $4M Per Month
69. Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 26, 2019, 08:48  dsmart 
 
djinn wrote on Jan 26, 2019, 08:19:
Overall I have to say you might be confusing me with someone who cares. I like entertaining solutions even to the most ridiculous problems and I see many for this one. It might be hard to swallow since you've been pretty consistent in your crusade, but I also think of it in terms of "hey, DS might also be right". Time will tell and I'll still sleep well

LOL! Not really. I was just pointing how all those points simply won't work because, well, not only is Chris woefully incompetent, but the funding success itself has proven to be a barrier (e.g. why would any publisher take on a project or give money to a guy who couldn't ship a product after getting so much free money?) that's done more harm than good to the project. Backers lose. The project loses. And only Chris and his friends (as well as the guys getting a paycheck and who keep this train-wreck going), benefited.

Not a day goes by that you don't hear of a videogame dev or publisher either raising money, or being sold. There's lots and lots of M&A going on in the sector, and a lot of money to be made - for the right team and product. Nobody gave Chris Roberts a penny. And that slight started since 2010 when we was trying to get money from publishers who just loled. And even in 2017, as "great" as he and the backers said Star Citizen was, not a SINGLE notable publisher or investor in the sector, gave him money. So he had to go to off-shore dark money which tends to come with huge risks and strings.
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
68. Re: Out of the Blue Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 26, 2019, 08:42  dsmart 
 
Drayth wrote on Jan 26, 2019, 07:48:
You're claiming that your 90 days tops statement didn't happen because people fed more money to CIG to prove it wrong.. instead of just the normal ship sales going on at the time??

Since you're patently clueless, I can see how it's tough for you to grasp the concept of how financing works. If a company has money to last 90 days, and they don't get funding from somewhere, somehow, the end result is they go out of business. That's how it works.

And their very own financial brochure shows that the downward spiral of spending more than they were making, STARTED in 2016. Just as sources had said. That was when I wrote the E.L.E blog, and we started coining the term because those decisions which he made for the project at the time, put it at risk. And all that happened despite the fact that Chris claimed - several times - that he scaled the project based on income. He lied. That's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. To the extent that he sold part of the company for bailout money, two years later in Summer 2018.

Ignoring facts doesn't make your world view any better.
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
64. Re: Out of the Blue Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 26, 2019, 07:17  dsmart 
 
Kxmode wrote on Jan 26, 2019, 01:29:
But always remember to be truthful with how you handle the information and the level of integrity with it from the source. That builds trust in your readers.

Absolutely. I mean, imagine if the things I was reporting on weren't true, or even based on facts? I'd be the laughing stock; and what would be the point of writing for 3.5 yrs straight?

Heck, you've seen what happened with the "90 days tops" comment that I made back in late 2015 when sources told myself and The Escapist that they were really hurting for cash and wouldn't make it through 2016. Because backers, who had convinced themselves that money was the key, kept giving them money in a bid to prove me wrong and to keep them going, amid what became a JPEG sales binge, they were able to continue. And that became a meme. But I knew the truth, but just couldn't prove it. Which is why they blew off my attorney when we asked for the promised financials. Had they provide the funds back in 2015, the truth would have come out back then.

Now look how that turned out. It wasn't until Dec 2018 that we come to find out that they WERE in fact insolvent since 2016 where they were spending more than they were raising. And that continued right through to the end of 2017. And we haven't even seen the 2018 numbers yet. Aside from that, the financials still didn't even go far enough to show how dire the situation was because it didn't include ANY of their liabilities at all. That's why it was just a farce to appease/appeal to backers to spend more. I mean, if you have $14m in the bank, and have more (e.g. we know of the $7m loan in the UK) than that in debt, you're literally insolvent.

I wonder if it wouldn't be better not to mention the information until it is safe to do so; including not even hinting it. That's when the data can sound matter-of-factly. When the lines blur, it's hard for your readers to separate source from facts, truth from opinion.

Unfortunately that's not going to do anyone any good because info coming out "after the fact" is useless, meaningless, and inconsequential.
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
62. Re: Out of the Blue Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 25, 2019, 20:19  dsmart 
 
Drayth wrote on Jan 25, 2019, 15:23:
KX, he's always gone after high profile space sims. Look up the Voilition programmer who talked about how he would harass them back when Freespace was the big dog.

False (again)

Maybe this is the part where you actually read up on my history with the devs and you'll find that I've been friends with them for a long time.

he even dogged on Elite Dangerous in a few tweets before SC's crowdfunding really took off.

False (again)

I go way back with David and some of his guys. The only thing I ever wrote about ED was that I wasn't backing it (during the crowd-funding) because I didn't believe that it would come out, giving all the previous false starts. I later backed it when it went into Beta.

It's easy for anyone to search my social media feed to see any/all statements I've made about other games over the years.

Posting lies isn't going to make them true. As desperate as you are to deflect from Star Citizen to other things - without a SHRED of evidence to support any of those claims - you WILL continue to FAIL HARD.
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
61. Re: Out of the Blue Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 25, 2019, 20:02  dsmart 
 
Kxmode wrote on Jan 25, 2019, 14:05:
...rest snipped...
Understand. Anyone who wanted to back Star Citizen by now would have done so, in which case you shouldn't disparage their choices.

I have never done that. Yes, I make fun of and defend against attacks from those guys who see me (who they say is irrelevant) as a threat to their game.

Remember, when they were giving money to a what many believe to be a scam, I was the one paying attorney fees to get: 1) a dev schedule 2) refunds for those who asked 3) financial accounting.

That was in 2015.

They blew me off on all three.

Then, as you know, less than 6 months later, the first dev public dev schedule appeared. They resumed giving refunds until they did a hard stop in Dec 2017 due to, as we now know, financial deficiencies. And now in Dec 2018, they release a financial brochure.

NOBODY was asking for ANY of those things. PLUS, through all that, their own financial brochure eventually proved - without a doubt - that not only was I right about their inability to ship *that* game with $150m, but also about their burn rate, financial state, the state of SQ42 etc. I've been right about ALL of it.

Conversely, most see the game as a long-term scam. In either case "beating a dead horse" means you're preaching to both sides wholly for and against Star Citizen. High walls exist on both sides that's impossible to break down. In other words, if your aim is the change opinion for or against that's likely not going to happen even with facts.

Indeed. But isn't that how our side of the Internet works? We talk about shit until the cows come home. And like old ladies, we hang on to shit forever - and a day. As long something is on-going, and it's polarized, we will always find something to bitch about.

To be clear (and I do believe that you know me better than that, having been on either side of some crap I've been involved in over the years), I'm not doing it for revenge, payback, jealousy or any of that nonsense because I'm not petty. Anyone paying attention knows that I never started this. I wrote a blog. The company issued a FALSE press release targeting me - after they refunded me without my asking - which then emboldened their crazy, toxic backers to start a proxy war on their behalf. Then they left me no choice but to defend myself, while using any means necessary to prove that I was right. And obviously the many friends, colleagues and peers who have worked on or are still working on the project, sided with me or they wouldn't be giving me all the critical insider info that has helped me bring to the public that which would otherwise be hidden. And by that, I saved a lot of people money because it made them stop and take a good look, instead of just relying on what I was writing and saying. To this day, I get emails thanking me for that. In fact, I got one just two days ago.

With regards facts, I think what you've done is good in blowing the whistle on many things that have proven right (your article in 2015 helped me choose to get a refund).

Indeed

However, one thing I would recommend is an explicit mention that specific information is sourced and the honesty with the info. In other words, if you cannot explicitly verify the integrity, then note that in your articles (e.g. "take this with a grain of salt" or "I cannot be confident with" or "The source is not in a position to verify"). Most of the time everything you posts comes off as matter-of-factly with no claim to trust the source or note the position of the source that would corroborate the data.

I agree. And I get that a lot. That's why in my later articles, without even having to issue a disclaimer (I'm a blogger, than a credible media personality or publication), I try to stick to factual data that easily accessible. And when I have to mention something that isn't public, I always mention that it came from sources - which should then give anyone a reason to pause and take it as they want.

e.g. As I wrote in my latest blog, I knew about this quest for external investment since Summer 2017. I simply couldn't divulge much about it without putting a source very close to the top, at risk. So I kept dropping hints. The last one I dropped, before I even broke the news about the $46m, was on May 8, 2018:

“So, how does a company that claims to have raised $185M in FREE money – over a period of 6 years – end up teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and with less than $9M in tangible cash assets?”

I still couldn't divulge any info. I got that tip when my source found out that the deal (via off-shore dark money) had closed, and that institutional investors and publishers didn't "bite" because nobody is dumb enough to give Chris Roberts money to build a game, after he already burned through so much already.

Then once my source told me that it was going to be public, less than a few days later, it appeared on the UK financial site. So I broke the news on Dec 12th. And the public got to see that the deal in fact closed in May 2018, they kept it hidden for seven months until they were forced (by UK law) to make it public.

During the course of 4 days, I wrote 4 more threads (1, 2, 3, 4) explaining what went down.

CIG didn't go public until 8 days later on Dec 20th, and I covered that too in a thread. I later wrote that latest blog on Dec 24th, laying everything out once the big secrets about their financial state and the state of SQ42, were finally EXPOSED.

This is how my insider stories unfold. e.g. the SQ42 debacle from 2016 which they tried to debunk as well, after I wrote that it wasn't coming out in 2016, that it was in indefinite hold etc. Heck, back in May 2017, I was told, and wrote that, the dev schedule went beyond 2017 (the year they claimed SC + SQ42 would be released) and well into 2021. I couldn't prove it without naming people. So we had to wait to see if it was true. Well, now we see that I was right about that too. And that was when thy were claiming that it was totally coming in 2018!

So sometimes it's not that I can't prove the things that I am writing from sources. It's that I can't prove it without putting sources at risk. Remember that back in late 2015 to early 2016, they fired people (e.g. James Pugh) because they claimed that he was one of my sources (he wasn't; and I don't even know the poor guy). I am old school, so I take things like confidentiality seriously. So I'm not going to breach that just to get lols because I don't gain ANYTHING from that, other than mistrust from the people who are giving me the info I need to expose what many believe to be an on-going scam. Heck, right now, something big is brewing, and I can't even give more info about it because I was advised not to. But it's bigger than the Dec 2018 revelations if you can believe that.

So it's a balancing act.

For me, at this point, seeing that I have been proven 100% right on all of the core things that I cared about and claimed, and they have already complied with the three things that I spent legal bills on back in 2015, my goal going forward is just to troll those guys incessantly, while reporting on anything new and relevant about the project. As I proclaimed in my E.L.E blog of 2016, I am still 100% certain that the project will collapse; and that day is fast approaching. And it's not a matter of WHEN, not IF.
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
53. Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 25, 2019, 12:05  dsmart 
 
Drayth wrote on Jan 24, 2019, 21:41:
First off, yes... wrong article. My bad. I don't follow the external details of the game like a hawk, I just jump in occasionally have fun, cruise the reddit and wait for the next major update. Unfortunately that doesn't compare to your billboard with strings running web-like across your living room.

Here's the article I was referring to. There's a pretty detailed forecast using the existing data from the financials dominating the bottom half of the article. If you want to argue if they're biased or w/e go for it. I don't follow the site, just followed a link once and mis-remembered it as being the Forbes article which I prob read the same day (I read any external articles about the financials in a single sitting).

Are you fucking kidding me? You went from Forbes to a noted Star Citizen fan site; and you expect anyone to take you seriously? You may as well have quoted Montoya, Noobifier or any of those other chucklefucks who have been engaged in virtue signaling for the dream.

Second, what are you arguing with me? Either they have scaled with their projections and used up what's needed to keep development going, or they have used less and have however much of a surplus that equates to (and I believe it's been reported numerous times they had a surplus at the end of 2017). Otherwise they wouldn't be around, or would be forcing their employees to work for free (which no one's ever reported).

That's pure and utter nonsense. You made it look as if they scaled according to finances, and that everything was OK. I pointed out that their own finances proved otherwise.

**snipped and ignored attempts at deflection**

Nice try. You must be new at this.
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
52. Re: Out of the Blue Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 25, 2019, 12:00  dsmart 
 
Kxmode wrote on Jan 24, 2019, 20:03:
dsmart wrote on Jan 24, 2019, 19:40:

...rest snipped...

People can do what they want with their money. The amount you spend doesn't make it any less a scam. I mean, there are people losing MILLIONS of Dollars in scams around the world. Get a grip.

At this point, you're beating a dead horse and appears to be less about warning people (e.g., good Samaritan) and more about a personal vendetta. If that's the rub, then be honest with people. Nothing wrong with that.

That's on you, not me. I stated facts. Engaging in on-going discourse has nothing to do with beating a dead horse, as that would imply that a person is doing it in order to impress upon others their opinions and beliefs. I believe that you know me better than that, and that I just don't care enough for that some of thing to even cross my mind.
 
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 Spending $4M Per Month
45. Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month Jan 24, 2019, 19:40  dsmart 
 
Drayth wrote on Jan 24, 2019, 19:17:
As has been stated, they scale to their projections, and will scale back if needed.

Turns out, they lied. Gee, who knew?

Forbes did an article recently (don't remember if that was posted here) and concluded they don't see a problem with them getting SQ42 out in two years barring any sudden change in their funding (obviously). Go read that if you want to argue with something.

No such article exists on Forbes. Here is what they said.

Or buy into DS's bullshit, and keep waiting out the "ELE"... and waiting.. and waiting....

Yeah, it's bullshit because it doesn't support your warped world view. This despite the fact that I've been right all along about this train-wreck.

The E.L.E is still in full swing. Just as I called it that back in my April 2016 blog of the same name. Turns out, I was right. They were burning more than they were raising, and literally insolvent this whole time; and desperate enough to get a $46m bailout loan which they kept secret for seven whole months.

I AM reasonable though, something catastrophic COULD happen.. SQ42 COULD flop.. this all COULD come crashing down.

Oh OK

But I'm also reasonable. I see what CR's manage to do with this project, and I don't see the crazy scam some paint it out to be.

LOL! Dude, it's a SCAM. And THAT'S the rep it now has in all of gaming who aren't drinking the kool-aid or have investments in JPEG futures.

They've scaled according to their funding.

No they haven't. Please, by all means, show us where you got that evidence from. I can't wait to read it.

And the fans are willing to put lots of money into this game's development

Apparently not enough to keep it afloat. Not to mention that 2018 is their lowest funding period for the past 4 years.

A programmer at my company has put in 5 digits of money to SC, and he acts as nonchalantly about it as when I splurge on a high-end video card. Such things are relative.

People can do what they want with their money. The amount you spend doesn't make it any less a scam. I mean, there are people losing MILLIONS of Dollars in scams around the world. Get a grip.
 
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
 
1077 Comments. 54 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