I can't tell if he's joking or serious...
I'm surprised you can't tell, you seem somewhat intelligent yet I could be overestimating you.
Smart isn't what you say he is because your history and present activities you drew out for him are factually inaccurate.
Oh please elucidate, you could actually have a response worth reading if you used this as the precedent for following words. I'd especially like to know what you think of "my history" and i'd like to know where you garner this high handed approach to things that you think your view of "my history" is valid, considering it is only a one sided viewpoint. You have never, after all, known why I do what I do, for what reasons, leaving one to have quite a poor understanding of anyone's history. This has a "group think" thought pattern written all over it, making conclusions based upon that will ultimately lead to poor decision making and ineffectual leadership.
He is not and never has been some sort of management expert that gets brought in to cut products down to get them on budget.
Since he was brought in to head a company that released an MMO, albeit a horrible one, yet they released an MMO... That says something important doesn't it? One could say that by virtue of his hiring he would be considered by those people to be a management expert... So I don't see how you draw your conclusions, except to take the view that you are above him. So who are you, he who has such a high and mighty view of things?
He's an independent game developer, he does his own unwieldy projects that take years to finish in an unpolished state.
Big companies are "going indy", the entire industry seems to be different shades of "indy". Saying someone is Indy is saying that they are hungry and wanting to make games that we wan't to play, indies are propping up the validity of large gaming companies by providing players with that "something new" that they want. Indy, as viewed by gamers, is a good thing. We don't need more bellicose game designer kingpins, we need visionaries that make new experiences.
They're not particularly good, but they're in no way simple, especially considering the monumental undertaking that is designing, creating, and marketing a video game by oneself.
That they are good is subjective, that the market has determined them to be not good doesn't mean that the game itself isn't good, that would be factually and logically incorrect. After all, it's about what the people value, and what they are aiming for. Perhaps he's not aiming to make the most money and prefers a niche? How well do you know him and his agenda?
The only time he has ever done something that could in any way be construed as the activities a closer partakes in, he was hired as president of a small company that was having management problems.
And the game shipped after he was hired so... it looks like he performed his job, in fact it's like he said exactly what I said he was doing earlier... Hired to ship games, he cut features, likely recovered the investments for his peers... i see no misrepresentation of the facts, rather a perspective of the facts that is riddled with interestingly glaring viewpoints.
He probably isn't monetarily capable of funding Star Citizen in any serious capacity, and he sure as hell isn't capable of forcing big fish to take his little fish ass on as a controlling investor. Even if he has the dough for it, they're rolling in money and can get more without even trying.
Yes, the public perception seems obvious that is what is happening, yet since this is an obvious tactical error it begs the question, what is really going on? Since there is uncertainty with likely intelligent players, there is a possible game afoot. The only game I see worthwhile would be to game investors out of their money by having them distracted with someone like Darek Smart. I'm glad to see that you see the tactical error plain as day as well. The point of the thread is to let other investors know of the possibility that is right before their eyes, as well as Star Citizen gaining perspective that perhaps they will not be able to control the perception of their investors.
You're theorizing that some minor economic force, who probably has most of his assets tied up in his own development and is better known for being an ass than he is for making products that sell well, is either already controlling, or going to bully Chris Roberts, a successful Hollywood producer and major player in development history with many highly successful products, into giving him control. It's his insignificance that is the barrier, not whether he's saintly or secretly the devil.
No, you are theorizing that about my perspective, which is not the same thing, and I do not agree with your theory for many reasons: Your theory attempts to show that I have no understanding of the obvious, when in fact is that i'm taking the obvious to the next level as a question; There is no discussion by me on the merits of his "saintliness" or "devilishness", those simplifications only further cloud the discussion and are ultimately irrelevant to the original thread. Since you want to introduce this into the discussion it could be that this is your intent, if it is shame on you and your misinformation. As for Mr. Smart's insignificance, ultimately it is up to the courts to decide, not you or I.
The bullying is being done by Chris Roberts AND Mr. Smart, in my opinion they are two dogs fighting over petty things while something of real value hangs in peril. It doesn't matter if Mr. Roberts is the big dog and Mr. Smart is the small dog, in the end small can beat big, size alone is not the only indicator of victory. At the end of the day, anything like this will only result in the net victory for the lawyers, crowd funds going to deal with legal issues, as an investor I would prefer both dogs be put down. but then, i'm oldschool like that. Martyrdom has a great impact on helping things get done, doesn't it?