AFAIK this is an issue with Microsoft’s XInput not supporting FF any more. I’m guessing a very litigious company owns the intellectual property so sadly nobody wants to touch it any more.
I don’t see the sense in hopping from one unhealthy obsession to another Jonny. To me it just looks like you were so unrealistically obsessive with SC that you saw you were in too deep then slingshotted from worshiping CR to worshiping DS. Now you obsessively follow him to try to justify your decisions instead of CR, when frankly the guy is nutjob tier crazy pants, is continuously wrong and yet every time he spins being wrong as just another reason for being right, you accept it because you are “butt hurt” as you said and you’re willing to go along with anything. It’s not healthy state for DS for sure, let alone anyone else following him, maybe if he spent less time talking about how SC was bankrupt 2 years ago on twitter this video wouldnt exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx1kMbC8ZxE
Feature creep? Yes, mismanagement? Sure, im pretty sure i can give a better overview of what they’re messing up than anyone else in this thread, but the extremes you take the accusations to are uninformed, irrational, obsessive and insane. Spying on you through the foip webcam? You’re a nut, you’re crazy in the coconut.
9 Likes
Hmm… I get FF support on ETS 2 with the G29, I wonder what input API that’s using then.
Also I’m pretty sure Forza Horizon 4 has FF support too
7 Likes
There’s certainly a viable reason: maintaining the illusion that they will ever deliver a good version that has everything they promised, in order to get the continued funding to deliver a shit product that has everything they promised.
If they can produce a version of the game that has every feature they ever promised (no matter how poorly it runs, or how badly balanced it is), then they are not nearly as liable to being found guilty in a fraud lawsuit.
I’m afraid, that you didn’t think that through. What you’re basically saying is that a game that ships and that has each promised feature implemented is still a scam / fraud, as long as it isn’t good enough. Under that train of thought Ubisoft alone would’ve committed fraud on at least 3 different occasions, when they released For Honor, Rainbow Six Siege and Watch_Dogs, because those games were kinda shit when they were put on the market. Bethesda would be a repeated offender with their fraudulently bad Fallout and Elder Scroll RPG’s who were borderline unplayable on release.
Are you actually capable of reading comprehension? I’ve read my post at least four times now, and can’t see where I said anything of the sort.
What I said was:
- They are pretending the product will be good to continue making sales.
- They will deliver a shit product that has every promised feature, regardless of quality or balance of final product.
- By including all the features, regardless of quality, they are significantly less liable in a lawsuit.
Since the money donated to the game was done so under a list of game inclusions, it is significantly different from a game bought under unwritten impressions.
The question still stands, how is this still considered to be a scam instead of “just” developing a shitty game?
In your scenario they delivered the product. Developing stuff for cheap aint scamming its common practice.
Frankly, there’s not reason whatsoever to consider differently a pre-order game from a funding model such as SC.
There are only a few differences in the operating methods, the two main being:
- Pre-order gives you only a one-shot view of moro… sorry, fan base
SC managed to make a long-lasting model, which keeps encouraging people to donate. - Also because of SC’s model, CIG is bound to give regular updates / feedback / dev planning. As such, the development is much more feedback-oriented than the vast majority of traditional AAA games (ignoring the very few NDA early access and open betas).
SC managed to make a long-lasting model, which keeps encouraging people to donate.I feel that the last point is what makes people so much more aware of what it is like inside a game dev company.
Imagine Fallout76 being monitored the same way SC is…
Eat popcorn while Bethesda gets wrecked down to oblivion before the game is even sold 
DS (the guy) comments on - CIG (UK) has filed their confirmation statement which lists owners, directors, investors.
1 Like
First, I only answered your question of why they’d bother continuing production instead of pocketing the money, not why it’s a scam.
It’s a scam because they started out with a realistic promise, made their money, and then expanded the scope of the project to be something that is not realistic given their choice of engine, and then switched off the originally promised engine to an engine that still won’t really cut it but is “theoretically” capable of handling such promises, just maybe not all at once.
It’s a scam because “technically checking off the boxes regardless of quality” is, in many places, a scam. Many US states have what is called a “Lemon Law” regarding car sales, where a dishonest salesman will sell you a car that will, down the road, develop a lot of problems that they “patched up” using half-assed but dirt cheap methods.
It didn’t start as a scam, or at least I hope not. I bought in thinking I’d have a pretty good game, some time ago. But their current business model of selling concepts faster than they can deliver actual ship models just means either they’ll drastically speed up the production (and likely lose quality) or they’ll never catch up. The promises they sold in the past that, without having switched engines to support (64 bit was required for many of their promises) means they cannot meet every expectation (some people bought in because Cry Engine was promised, but they no longer use it, and those people will have to struggle very hard to get their money back). The way they keep modifying their ToS to cut customer rights and deny refunding money screams shady dealings, if not outright theft.
They could deliver a flawless product tomorrow and, while I’d being surprised and admit that they actually did deliver a quality product. I’d also still never give them a red cent, because their company treats customers like shit.
Thanks for taking the time to write a more in-depth answer.
In other news, in the lawsuit crytek vs CIG & RSI, the court has granted CIGs motion to dismiss, giving CryTek another 21 days to make a final 3rd amendment.
Here’s a video going through the court’s order:
1 Like
DS posted about this the other day but I didn’t think it amounted to much so didn’t repost it. Discovery still goes ahead.
Isn’t it telling how viciously they’re attacking the only actual lawyers covering this story online just because they don’t agree with their conclusions? I usually don’t click your links, but i did this time wondering how dsmart was reacting to being wrong again. What i don’t grasp is how you find the attitudes in that thread and the contained youtube comment chains acceptable. It’s bizzare, crytek is obviously losing their case, maybe that will change in the future but the current conclusion is obvious, it’s not the lawyer’s fault for interpreting the case, they aren’t fake lawyers because you disagree with them.
As the absurdity of claims rises ever higher, the story keeps having to get propped up by bigger and bigger webs of scaffolding, now to support that web apparantly the youtube lawyers that have covered this are all in CIG’s pocket. As claims grow in outlandishness, more and more outside people must be discredited. Everything about this completely toxic, to quote the angry private messages you send me “what is fecking wrong with you”, stop spreading this radioactive sewage here.
7 Likes
I keep personal issues in PM, and not aired in public out of respect for the IB forum.
If you don’t like the re-posted info about the case then don’t read it or click the links to that info. Personally I don’t read other peoples comments on the DS forum or youtube comments. DS posts updates and his opinion on the developments in the case, like links to case PDF’s and CIG filings etc, and on SC as a whole.
1 Like
1 Like
You’re only supposed to paint the OUTSIDE of your ship in battleship grey (although why you’d bother doing that for a spaceship is beyond me).
You paint the inside a bright colour (White, creme, teal, lime, light silver, etc.) to make repairs, maintenance and seeing where you’re going in combat conditions easier.
The dull grey is just plain bad.
2 Likes
There are so many problems with this design.
If it’s a military capital ship, why are their exterior-facing windows? That’s just begging for combat decompression.
Also I’m guessing there’s no zero g in any circumstances inside these vessels, otherwise movement will be a nightmare.
Also as per usual in fantasy naval warfare in space land the bridge is windowed and apparently at the top of the ship, yay.
Also agree with @Naiba on colour scheme. Great for mood lighting, terrible for seeing things in a panic in combat.
5 Likes
I don’t think SC is going for realism though. /s