3224

3225

I checked and you’re right - their use of the word “seamless” is mostly when describing planetary landings.

I apologize, since it was stupid of me to assume that the BDSSE would model space like, you know, space. And that it would achieve what other space games have achieved years ago at a fraction of the budget.

3226

It could actually be harmful to the game’s design if there were no clear system boundaries. Bounty Hunting is planned to be a career path, so imagine if a criminal could just slow-burn infinitely into the black nothing.

In Star Citizen, using your Quantum Drive (1/5th speed of light) costs fuel, but your thrusters can go forever.

3227

That said, I don’t even know what their plans for system boundaries are going forward, they’re currently gating you off in the Baby-PU because the rest of the Stanton system doesn’t exist yet.

3228

I laughed, I cried. :)

3229

Foundry 42 UK’s 31 December 2015 year end financials.

Source.

Pasted image482×613 21.8 KB

Good, bad? I dunno. F42UK is where all the expensive motion cap stuff was happening apparently.

3230

Taxation is a positive?

3231

Effective tax credits/incentives for video game industry operating in UK, not sure of specifics.

3232

This page from the notes has more details on the tax:

Page 17.jpg2513×3556 217 KB

Also, this page looked interesting:

Page 16.jpg2513×3556 190 KB

132 employees. Also the directors’ pay & benefits.

3233

On the income side of things, here’s a study of the Star Citizen backer population, estimated from forum statistics.

3234

Director pay actually looks quite reasonable, given there are three of them. But, this is just one of several Star Citizen companies, no? There are other companies incorporated globally related to this endeavor that they are also likely directors of and drawing additional salaries from?

  • Foundry 42 Limited, UK
  • Foundry 42 Germany
  • Cloud Imperium Games Limited, UK
  • Cloud Imperium Games, LLC, West Hollywood, CA
  • Cloud Imperium Games LLC, Santa Monica, CA
  • Cloud Imperium Games Texas LLC, Austin, Texas
  • Cloud Imperium Games Texas, LLC, West Hollywood, CA
  • Roberts Space Industries Limited, UK
  • Roberts Space Industries Corp., West Hollywood, CA
  • Roberts Space Industries International Limited
  • Twin Bros. GMBH
3235

Turns out you can get a refund on Star Citizen, if you go to the LA district attorney, FTC, and DCBA

Streetroller, who hasn’t provided his real name during his account of this exchange, first contacted CIG requesting a refund on June 14, telling them Star Citizen “remains unfulfilled and no longer constitutes the product(s) I originally purchased”.

CIG responded by reiterating their terms of service (recently changed to make refunds harder to obtain). Specifically this passage, from that recent change:

“For the avoidance of doubt, in consideration of [Roberts Space Industry’s] good faith efforts to develop, produce, and deliver the Game with the funds raised, you agree that any Pledge amounts applied against the Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost shall be non-refundable regardless of whether or not RSI is able to complete and deliver the Game and/or the pledge items.”

CIG rejected his request for a refund once again. That’s where the LA district attorney came in. Streetroller also contacted the FTC and LA DCBA to file complaints against CIG. After the latter were contacted by the DA, Streetroller was refunded $900 on June 23.

The DCBA also told Streetroller they urged others to come forward and file a complaint against CIG regarding refund policy. It’s one to keep an eye on, with a precedent now having been set.

3236

I wish the pledges included video documentary, like the ones you got from Double Fine Adventure game.

The complete saga would be epic and probably up there with Wagners the Ring of the Nibelung.

3237

Star Citizen is having a “free fly week” starting today. Instructions here: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/promotions/Summer-Free-Fly-2016

3238

I’m a bit confused by that pcgamesn.com article. They say:

CIG responded by reiterating their terms of service (recently changed to make refunds harder to obtain). Specifically this passage, from that recent change:

“For the avoidance of doubt, in consideration of [Roberts Space Industry’s] good faith efforts to develop, produce, and deliver the Game with the funds raised, you agree that any Pledge amounts applied against the Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost shall be non-refundable regardless of whether or not RSI is able to complete and deliver the Game and/or the pledge items.”

And then they provide a WayBack Machine link to the “original” TOS, which includes the passage:

For the avoidance of doubt, in consideration of RSI’s good faith efforts to develop, produce, and deliver the Game with the funds raised, you agree that any Pledge amounts applied against the Pledge Item Cost and the Game Cost shall be non-refundable regardless of whether or not RSI is able to complete and deliver the Game and/or the pledge items

The only difference between the new and the old version is that they changed "[Robert Space Industry’s] to “RSI’s”, so that part has nothing to do with the recent change.

They do correctly highlight that Streetroller was basing his case on the new TOS’s removal of this section:

You agree that any unearned portion of your Pledge shall not be refundable until and unless RSI has failed to deliver the relevant pledge items and/or the Game to you within eighteen (18) months after the estimated delivery date.

Eighteen months have already passed since the estimated delivery date, which would make the signatory eligible for a refund for “any unearned portion” of their pledge. Indeed, at the end of the new TOS, it reads:

Pledges made under previous Terms of Services continue to be governed by the corresponding clause of the Terms of Services, or of the Commercial Terms, as applicable, which were in effect at the time of making the Pledge

Which means that Streetroller was in the right to request a refund, as per the new TOS. Only a new backer ought to be affected by the change.

3239

I highly doubt that the DCBA particularly cared about a change in the TOS. It was probably the “he paid $2.5k and hasn’t received his product” thing that got them to write a letter (before you start, we all know that the ‘product’ in this case is backing a project, etc etc). Whether that letter had legal standing is almost irrelevant at that point because CIG had a simple choice in how to respond:

  1. Tell the DCBA to pound sand and risk a potentially deeper investigation
  2. Refund money

Is it really a surprise that they opted to cut a cheque?

3240

Space-pony

3241

And now it seems Squadron 42 will be part of a reality show on TV?

I’ll say, the scope of this game keeps growing and growing, huh? ;)

3242

Cast Me! is apparently going to be on Myx TV, which is “a cable network targeting Asian Americans”.

3243

PC Games magazine (German) did a piece on upcoming Star Citizen developments, and got to try out the new procedural planets.

Here’s an album containing images from the piece.

The journalist claims that planetary landings look and feel technically better than those in Elite: Dangerous. They mention that planets and moons are revolving around suns, with naturally simulated day and night cycles. Trees and animals will be packaged into pre-made templates called eco-systems which can be brushed over the planet’s surface by designers, with some sort of algorithm that blends them together to make them look more natural (eco-systems will not be ready for Alpha 2.7 though). Clouds are volumetric.

They add that Star Marine will arrive in Alpha 2.6. Trading will be in by the end of 2016, as well as the entire Stanton system with all of its planetary landing locations and hubs. I don’t know if this means that physical cargo hauling is confirmed for 2016, or if they will use a placeholder solution.