Star Citizen - Chris Roberts, lots of spaceship porn, lots of promises

[KevinC]

It’s been six years. I just do not understand how people can look at the manpower and funding that has gone into this over a period of six years time, see that this is all they have to show so far, and continue contributing money.

[Fifth_Fret]

That transcript seemed unfair. Most transcripts don’t include filler noises. It also makes it unreadable, as would most people if you included such sounds in a transcript.

[JeffL]

It’s been six years. I just do not understand how people can look at the manpower and funding that has gone into this over a period of six years time, see that this is all they have to show so far, and continue contributing money.

Same here. I was an early contributor and got my money back last year. I’ve been a gamer since the early 80s, covered the industry as a writer for a while for mags like CGW and CGM (even reviewed a Derek Smart game and have talked a lot with him over the years) and love love love open world games, sandbox games, of all types. I had high hopes for a Crawford open world space sim, free to play whatever role and do whatever I want. I have absolutely zero - less than zero - interest in a FPS. No interest in a cinema like set of cut scenes. Just wanted a large open world space opera.

I did not jump on the bandwagon of criticizing Crawford et al. for a while. But the selling of ships for outrageous amounts for a game that doesn’t exist yet, after raising so much more than the initial fundraising goal, left a foul taste in my mouth. And now, looking at where this project is, after all this time, and all of these resources, I’ve stopped giving them any benefit of the doubt.

I was looking through the company records I could find, thinking the odds were high they have given the project management job to Cleve Blakemore.

[sharaleo]

It’s in Derek’s transcript, but it’s worth watching, because the 4 minute answer to these two questions is just…wow:

Is there somebody who’s stopping you? Really Chris, you got all these ideas, but we’ve got to finish a game, is there somebody who says, ‘OK, we go until we get to this point and then we try to do it"

Yes but I guess the question was more in the direction of, ‘get to version 1.0 and then keep going from there’…

I suppose the question should have been, at what point will they start selling a product, with all the consumer rights that go along with that, as opposed to taking donations, which to a certain extent shields them from said protections. Such weasel word answers indicates they will be happy to have this in permanent development. In his mind this game is already ‘out’. That’s it, there will be no 1.0, just constant iteration of what already exists, as long as people are donating to development. maybe some game loops will get there eventually, maybe they won’t, but they will happily hide behind ‘it’s coming’ until the day funding no longer supports development.

And don’t get me wrong, constant iteration is fine, that’s what the backers signed up for - in alpha/beta/whatever, But those answers indicate a fundamental lack of plan or drive to hit an end state that justifies the goodwill their community has and continues to show them.

[kedaha]

Well you have to wait a little bit longer. I mean it’s going, it’s going really well. We’re not showing it here at Gamescon, because for me I want to have it at a certain level of polish and so we’re working at getting it there but there’s a lot of the stuff that we actually show in our updates on ATV and a lot of, some of the stuff in 3.0 is specific stuff that is enabling and being used for Squadron 42 and in fact some of the stuff that we, you know, introduced like the planetary tech, we also put into Squadron 42, so there are, there is, you know… case… is when you… go down on like a moon or a planet and it’s something like that, so…

First paragraph, doesn’t make it any beter.

[Fifth_Fret]

First paragraph, doesn’t make it any beter.

It’s terrible, but in markedly different ways. I’d much rather be able to read the substance of what he’s saying and criticise that, than marvel as his inarticulate speech patterns.

[kedaha]

It seems the same kind of terrible to me, exactly because there is no substance! YMMV though

I don’t find it bad because of awkward pauses or in-eloquence, I find it bad because I can’t find any actual answers in it!

[Fifth_Fret]

I don’t find it bad because of awkward pauses or in-eloquence, I find it bad because I can’t find any actual answers in it!

Agreed! But it seems like if you really want to expose that, you don’t leave in the ‘uhs’ and the ‘ahs’ and the ‘mooooons’.

As I said, I gave up on reading it before, because I couldn’t tell what was his lack of content or my inability to parse through all the filler noise.

[Lantz]

It’s terrible, but in markedly different ways. I’d much rather be able to read the substance of what he’s saying and criticise that, than marvel as his inarticulate speech patterns.

I think that’s kind of what you’re going to get from a random internet person’s transcript. No offense to them but they probably don’t know what to cut and keep and how to deal with inflections or whatever. Also I think part of what they are trying to capture is that these are pretty simple softball questions that he should have some kind of stock answer ready for but instead he just fumbles around and doesn’t answer at all.

[kedaha]

Pretty much! They weren’t even ‘surprising’ questions so you would have expected a smoother (if no less informative) answer

[sharaleo]

Agreed, the warts and all transcript is not really that helpful for rebutting the lack of actual content as it’s difficult to parse in written form. It’s only helpful for nit picking at his delivery style, which, whatever, I won’t hold lack of professional public speaking skills against CR.

[Fifth_Fret]

I think that’s kind of what you’re going to get from a random internet person’s transcript.

Agreed. It’s still hardly the most useful of way of presenting the transcript.

Also I think part of what they are trying to capture is that these are pretty simple softball questions that he should have some kind of stock answer ready for but instead he just fumbles around and doesn’t answer at all.

That’s the least charitable motivation of the random transcriber’s motivation for leaving that stuff in. I would prefer to assume they did the best job they could as a random, untrained person transcribing an interview for free, rather than assume they were leaving that stuff in to give an impression.

[Lantz]

That’s the least charitable motivation of the random transcriber’s motivation for leaving that stuff in. I would prefer to assume they did the best job they could as a random, untrained person transcribing an interview for free, rather than assume they were leaving that stuff in to give an impression.

I would agree with you as far as the ideal world, but I think given the person did the transcript is described as “Goon ambassador, SomethingJones” I think it is fair to assume that they provided the transcript with a particular agenda in mind.

[dsmart]

Holy crap, that interview was a series of poorly-executed dodges to softball questions. He’s never been a particularly articulate fellow, but this was a new level extraordinary awkwardness.

Yes. He’s very nervous now; especially since the rumored layoffs are apparently a thing.

[dsmart]

That transcript seemed unfair. Most transcripts don’t include filler noises. It also makes it unreadable, as would most people if you included such sounds in a transcript.

There’s nothing unfair about it. SomethingJones transcribes exactly what you would be hearing if you were watching. What’s wrong with that?

[dsmart]

I think that’s kind of what you’re going to get from a random internet person’s transcript. No offense to them but they probably don’t know what to cut and keep and how to deal with inflections or whatever. Also I think part of what they are trying to capture is that these are pretty simple softball questions that he should have some kind of stock answer ready for but instead he just fumbles around and doesn’t answer at all.

You’re reading too much into it. That’s how us Goons have transcribed his many ramblings. It’s a thing. It’s hilarious. And it’s a constant source of lols. Get with the program.

[sharaleo]

nothing unfair about it. SomethingJones transcribes exactly what you would be hearing if you were watching. What’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with that is that it is perfectly natural speech for non-professional speakers that our brains are inherently very good at tuning out. Putting it in text makes it a) hard to read and b) not really a fair representation as most people that recall hearing the live speech would not recall the um’s and ah’s anyway. It is purely a (reasonably) spiteful way to present how someone has spoken, rather than the actual content of their speech.

We can do it for Trump though.

[dsmart]

What’s wrong with that is that it is perfectly natural speech for non-professional speakers that our brains are inherently very good at tuning out. Putting it in text makes it a) hard to read and b) not really a fair representation as most people that recall hearing the live speech would not recall the um’s and ah’s anyway. It is purely a (reasonably) spiteful way to present how someone has spoken, rather than the actual content of their speech.

We can do it for Trump though.

Right. See my previous response, and all will be clear :)

[sharaleo]

Yeah, but I am not sure it is adding that much value to your own messaging. There is enough wrong with the content of CR’s answers, in and of itself, without resorting to essentially making fun of his delivery style.

Besides that, some people are fucking terrified of public speaking. And even those that aren’t terrified or even have natural talent have to practice and rehearse to avoid the old um/ah traps.

[Fifth_Fret]

We can do it for Trump though.

We actually don’t do it for Trump!