Thread by @dsmart

{thread}
Back in 2016, @jBenson wrote an in-depth article "Inside the Troubled Development of Star Citizen" for @Kotaku_UK

It gave a very inside look into the development which - my blogs aside - had all the warning signs that the project was FUBAR.

kotaku.co.uk/tag/inside-sta…

Prior to that, only The Escapist had come close to doing any sort of research into the project's demise.

@TheEscapistMag got threatened with legal action by CIG. That got settled, and the article was later removed. But we have archives

web.archive.org/web/2017011920…

That Benson article, had hints of how the Star Citizen "prototype" came to be, who helped create it etc.

It mentioned how Crytek devs like Sean Tracey, Paul Reindell and Hannes Appell became involved in the project.

It didn't go into Crytek's eventual extensive involvement

A few weeks ago, I wrote a thread about the extent of Crytek's involvement, which only came to light after they sued CIG/RSI in Dec 2017.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/9707143…

In all of the filings by CIG, in which they disputed everything - including not knowing why (yeah) they were being sued - they have never disputed this accounting by Crytek.

What now know as fact is a CLEAR indication that Chris Roberts established a pattern of LYING to backers

In Oct 2012 interview, before the Kickstarter completed in Nov 2012, he said:

"We’re already one year in - another two years puts us at 3 total which is ideal. Any more and things would begin to get stale."

web.archive.org/web/2017032004…

In the latest Mar 9th court filing by CIG, on page 5, they claim that the project has been in development for five and a half years.

This would mean that dev actually started sometime in late 2012.

docdroid.net/3xk4ojP/att1-m…

This somehow conveniently matches up with the completion of the Kickstarter campaign, as well a the signing of the licensing (GLA) agreement with Crytek.

See the problem with this?

Take all these PUBLIC and LEGAL filings into account, we can only arrive at ONE conclusion.

Chris Roberts LIED to backers (and of course investors). As he has been doing since the very start of this project.

Let's examine this specific aspect, shall we?

As I wrote back in 2015, I know - for a fact - that Crytek was working with him during 2011 to build the proof-of-concept material used to promote the game.

Thing is, they didn't use it to build the game up from there, as it was never intended to be used for that.

This is where the disparity between the actual dev start dates, and his claims, come into focus. He lied about it in order to gain the confidence of backers who were misled into thinking that the project 1) was farther along 2) would look and play as was seen in those tech demos.

We didn't see ANY aspect of the game until the hangar (where you view 3D models of ships for sale) module was released on Aug 9th, 2013

robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/tran…

We didn't see a playable aspect of the game until the Arena Commander (space combat) module was released on June 4th, 2014.

robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/tran…

The first fps module, ArcCorp, didn't appear until Aug 28th, 2015.

robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/tran…

The first module which combined elements of Hangar + Arena Commander + ArcCorp modules, dubbed the "Persistent Universe" (aka Star Citizen actual) didn't appear until Dec 11th, 2015.

robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/tran…

Finally, Star Marine, the much touted fps combat module - which hilariously operates separately like other modules before it, didn't arrive until Dec 23, 2016.

It was DOA.

robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/tran…

Which brings us to Nov 22, 2017 and the debut of the first planetary tech in the much touted 3.0 patch.

Amid MAJOR performance and networking issues, it's now as dead as Star Marine before it.

robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/commu…

Going back and looking at ALL the tech demos which Chris was promoting as "in game" or "in game engine", we have yet to find a SINGLE element that has survived the years of dev.

Why?

Because as I stated earlier, they were tech demos - not representative of a GAME

Normally, this wouldn't be a big deal because very few tech demos or prototypes make it into final product.

However, studios - let alone indie studios - tend not to scrap everything and start from scratch. Like ever. SOMETHING tends to survive such transitions.

For example, the crowd-funded System Shock project which also recently collapsed (it's basically dead), switched from Unity3D to UE4. It was an engine change that kept most - if not all - of the game assets (levels, art, audio etc).

The long and short of it is that the Star Citizen project - as we know it - was never actually in "development" between 2011-2012.

We know this now to be FACT.

Chris Roberts was basically doing what devs tend to do when dealing with publishers and investors when asking for funding. He LIED.

And, like a politician, THAT was the platform on which he sold backers the project. That he wouldn't do what publishers and/or devs do etc.

As innocuous as this may appear, it goes toward the credibility of not only the execs running the project, but also their motivations for actions taken e.g. multiple ToS changes which are favorably to the execs & company, the true funding amounts/sources, state of the project etc

In the latest Mar 9th CIG publicly disclosed (like they did a confidential licensing agreement in Jan 2018) Crytek's discovery request. The sheer volume & expanse of the Crytek request is specifically how entire cemeteries of skeletons get uncovered in legal cases.

This goes beyond the disclosure of financial documents because the Crytek list is thorough, as they inquire about specific things. e.g. in this Dec 2017 video @ 21:40 appears to have been spliced where the dev uttered "CryEngine" instead of "Lumberyard"

I have written extensive articles about the deficiencies in the engine tech they are trying to build.

In Dec 2017, I wrote "Irreconcilable Differences" in which I documented why I believed that they NEVER switched to Lumberyard when they said they did.

dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-c…

I have proof and evidence that supports my article. And it's neither conjecture, nor guesswork or theory.

I even write anecdotes like this from time to time.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/9381960…

Now imagine how much evidence Crytek - who will have access to the ENTIRE source code history (via version control) - can come up with through discovery.

THAT's the sort of thing that can prove not only if/when they switched, but also to what extent.

This evidence is key to some of Crytek's claims cuz even though CIG DOES have an active (it can't be terminated at-will) license agreement, if they are using ANY aspect of CryEngine - even in conjunction with Lumberyard, then they have violated parts of the agreement.

So this why we are now seeing (courtesy of CIG) the list of things that Crytek is seeking through discovery, and which CIG have been resisting for weeks now, while delaying the inevitable.

They KNOW that if their MtD is denied (as it will in whole or in part), they are SCREWED.

As I mentioned in my thread yesterday, part of being screwed is that anything that's no longer under the control of CIG, is very likely to leak. As I've said before, I have NO issues with leaking anything that comes my way because backers who FUNDED this, have a RIGHT to know.

There is NO scenario whereby a company raises $180 million (according to them), then after 6 years, not only FAILS to deliver a SINGLE product, but walks back any/all accountability promises made to backers.

If nothing else, this Crytek lawsuit will continue to provide answers.

unroll