Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee

Star Citizen backers are generally pretty understanding about Cloud Imperium Gaming's ongoing crowdfunding efforts, and many of them own hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of virtual ships for CIG's upcoming space game(s). An effort to raise more funds for CitizenCon has met with outrage, however, as fans balked at an effort to charge to watch a livestream of the keynote for the convention. After considerable backlash on Reddit, the developer has relented and made the stream free once again (thanks theyarecomingforyou). Chris Roberts' post about all this outlines initial reasoning that sounds similar to what's happened with development of the game itself, saying more money was sought because the scope of the convention has expanded beyond their initial plans:
This year's CitizenCon is much bigger than last years, with two separate stages and tracks. We did this because we felt the format we tested last year was a success and because of this we wanted to expand it to allow more people to attend and provide more opportunities to hear from and interact with the devs.

With a venue and planned attendance three times the CitizenCon in Frankfurt, with more panels (so more devs needing to travel) , more food and drink options for everyone the proposed budget for this year's CitizenCon was almost double last years. And this was without any video coverage, let alone streaming of the second stage, and a plan to just stream the opening keynote from the main stage.

Yes, you read that right, the original plan didn't have any plan for streaming anything beyond the opening keynote. There was not even video archiving of the second stage due the additional costs of getting a second video crew for that stage. Even then there was some debate as to whether it was truly worth it to spend a chunk of change to stream the opening keynote for 90 minutes when we're always in a foot race to compress it as a high-quality video and post to YouTube as quickly as possible after the demo so people can enjoy a HD Video as opposed to a crappy re-post of a Twitch Stream.
View : : :
62.
 
Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
Sep 2, 2018, 14:33
62.
Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 2, 2018, 14:33
Sep 2, 2018, 14:33
 
dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
I don't even know where to begin. But since you are being uncharacteristically civil - for once - I'll indulge.
Likewise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:56:
Yes, CIG is totally going to lie about everything, but not about money. No, not at all. Money, the #1 root of all evil and the primary reason that people lie, cheat, steal, kill. But CIG, run by execs who have a HISTORY of specifically behavior geared toward lying, cheating and stealing, is completely above that. God, I can't even stop laughing. Thanks for the Sun morning lols.
Chris Roberts has a proven track record when it comes to making games. Do I believe he is making Star Citizen for altruism? Absolutely not. Does he pay himself a large salary? Almost certainly. But nothing you have presented makes a credible case that he has decided to destroy his reputation by committing a large scale, high profile scam when he's already a multi-millionaire with an extremely comfortable life. Far more likely is that he's trying to make the game promised but it's a lot more difficult and time consuming than he thought.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
Date
Subject
Author
52.
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
53.
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
54.
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
56.
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
58.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
55.
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
60.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
 62.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
         Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
63.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
64.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
65.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
68.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
66.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
67.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
69.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
70.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
72.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
73.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
74.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
77.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
80.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
84.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
86.
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
                  Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
87.
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
                   removed
88.
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
                    Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
71.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
75.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
59.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
76.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
78.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
79.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
81.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
82.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
83.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
85.
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
89.
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018