In what is a hilarious turn of events for Star Citizen…remember how they have all those shell companies?
Well, this is their response to a recent small claims court case a backer brought against them for his refund.
Yes - it’s real; and it’s not a meme.
Looks like he should of filed against:
Cloud Imperium Games, LLC
12322 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1014
who exactly did he file against? That first page indicates "Roberts Space Industries LLC with no address. How would it end up in the UK?
No. He’s in the UK. Cloud Imperium Games LLC does not exist in the UK. Only Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd exists. And they already front-loaded the hilarity by saying they have no relationship with him, in that he didn’t buy anything from them. Now he has to prove otherwise by providing his purchase details, and to which entity his money went.
This is why we have attorneys.
It’s hilarious to me that they’re going through all this trouble for €60. I can’t wait to see their response if they get sued there for 4,500. They will probably claim they don’t even know what Star Citizen is.
So he lives in the UK, but filed in Santa Monica? I am confused.
am I confusing it with another small claims case?
No this is a different one. Just 60 euros according to Derek’s post.
Wow. I’ve got just a couple of dozen developers and it was obvious as we grew from one small team to a few teams I couldn’t personally review every line of code without becoming a huge bottleneck, not to mention there aren’t enough hours in the day to give a proper review to the output of even a couple of dozen people. This sounds like a double disaster in that work gets bottlenecked on code review, and thus reviewers are time stressed and are probably not doing good careful reviews.
I’m not in any way one that understands code or coding. But wouldn’t the way to know if the code works or not entail seeing it work? As in watching the game? If there is a glitch in the graphics or whatever, after it’s compiled and run, that’s where to look? As opposed to reading every damn line of code first? And even then, how does reading code prove that it works well with other code.
Sorry if I’m asking a stupid question.
Well, in theory, you catch mistakes from other people sanity checking it the same way you sometimes can’t see your own spelling or grammar errors.
There are times for it (near release, etc), but when used as an “always on” practice what it usually does is waste company resources and allow bad programmers to avoid responsibility. (“Sure it’s broken, but so-and-so code reviewed it!”)
Having the code actually work when you run it is indeed a primary part of QA. However code that just works is not really enough for anything but a small hobby project. Code needs to be readable, understandable and maintainable. Something that works, but will be undecipherable to others or even just the coder himself six months later, is not a good thing to have. So looking at some bit of code as a black box and testing just that it gives the right outputs based on the inputs is not really sufficient for a major software project. Code needs to not just do the job, but it needs to do it right and not be too difficult to maintain and modify later.
It’s also often beneficial to code review before having the resulting product tested by QA. Just like having someone else proofread some written work for errors, you catch at a lot of things by having someone else read your code and make sure it makes sense and you didn’t make any obvious mistakes that your own readings just glossed over. Often things that might be hard for QA of the product to find or would be more time consuming to find can be found in code review.
Thanks for the answers. An old hardware guy appreciates it. :)
A seminal moment in the career of many a software developer is when they’ve been at a job for long enough that one day when they have to find a bug in some code, while reading over the code they at first think “who the hell wrote this crap” and then as they explore further they realize “oh, wait, I did”.
I am in no way even in the same galaxy as a software developer, but years ago I did take Fortran (on, um, punchcards) and my second job after my first stint in grad school involved, at one point, having to write software documentation for a system written in Fortran. While I had an actual programmer working with me, I at least could make some sense out of the code; my job was to make sure we had an actual set of instructions for the people using the system. It was a black (super classified) system and everything was running in a secure shielded room, etc., so it was extremely annoying across the board.
Anyhow, reading the code, we soon realized that one, at least three programmers and probably more had worked on most of the sections, and two, none of them seemed to communicate with each other or even be working towards the same goals. Turns out my company was like the second or third group to be handed this thing, and that helped explain why we’d find comments like “What the hell does this do???” and “Not sure what this is.”
Turned out that, when we deployed the system for real, me and my programmer ended up running it anyhow, so at least we had a user’s manual.Maybe someone else was running a version too (in those compartments, no one knew what the other guys were doing half the time), and maybe my documentation actually helped someone. But man, what a CF.
Of course, then, there was at least the excuse of classification, super specialized function, and very limited pool of people to work on the project. I doubt Star Citizen has those excuses.
^^ This, so much this. I would add I usually look at a problem I solved a few years earlier and think “well that is just a stupid approach, why didn’t I just do it this way which is twice as fast and half as complex?”
Also I have never heard of QA or non technical directors doing code reviews, ever. Presumably he is talking about feature reviews or something?
Although who knows if it is actually him …
Its possible. He maybe using a figure of speech, as in “it feels as if QA and Directors are approving every other line of code.”
Thats me putting words in his mouth, not his actual quote obviously. But no, I have never seen QA actually look at source code let alone review or approve it.
No, I meant that the person making that Glassdoor post could be an impostor and the whole thing is made up.
Ah yeah, for sure. Could be. But also seems plausible.
Yeah, this is a completely different filing in the UK.
He said it’s not him. I’ve been chatting with him on Messenger. He says he didn’t write it.