Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

GuruNot

GuruNot
Agony_Aunt said:
When SC eventually flops the faithful will blame anyone except CR. They will say the world wasn't ready for his genius, that backers didn't have enough faith, that its all the fault of refundians or Derek Smart.
Click to expand...
Surely you are not wrtiing them off yet?? Give them a chance, they are still designing the tools and framework, implementing initial place holder features whilst trying to shoehorn core fundemental tech into exisiting code.

This month should see them cross the $600 million mark (according to the tracker):
1690960920484.png
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
GuruNot said:
Surely you are not wrtiing them off yet?? Give them a chance, they are still designing the tools and framework, implementing initial place holder features whilst trying to shoehorn core fundemental tech into exisiting code.

This month should see them cross the $600 million mark (according to the tracker):
View attachment 362934
Click to expand...

Early days :D

But I wrote them off when they lost control of the scope, circa 2014. Perhaps even earlier, when they started adding things to their funding goals with no clear link between new features and the values associated with them.

At the end of the day, they've failed to deliver on what they said they could do with 65 million with 10x the amount provided (including additional money from Calder and subscriptions and other sources of funding).

That's just a huge red flag that anyone should be able to see.... but the faithful simply refuse to see it.

Just a few billion more and SC will happen! :p
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
Fizzatron said:
This is what I think CIG & Theranos actually have in common. They both were/are (being very fair) legitimately working towards something on a gamble/promise that as they were developing it the tech needed to make it happen would reveal itself along the way and would make the initial unsupported claim true in the end. The deception being selling the product as 100% possible rather than 100% probable possibly maybe but we're sure it will work out in the end. Then, in CIG's case, reinforcing that statement with fake demos/vertical slices that don't work in the greater context of the final product they were selling to backers. Of course, Theranos being in the medical field made that situation far more serious than a video game company, but the net effect of taking people's money without knowing that they can actually deliver the product as sold, in my opinion, reaches the level of financial fraud, as no-one who put money into this was told "we're not sure we can actually deliver this" as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
That describes both projects in a very accurate way indeed. One slight difference is that Theranos never managed to release a product, except some fraudulent trials and prototypes. Never managed to commercialize anything to the market. Their money came primarily from investors and contracts hoping for the best. Whereas CIG has managed to release a product (in early access) to the market and their money comes primarily from actual sales of a product sold as is. The product CIG has released is extremely crappy and broken as is, but it is a released product nonetheless.

The fraud angle in both cases (potential fraud in the case of CIG, actual in Theranos) is the same though: The willful misrepresentations and undelivered promises both got their money with (the health issues related to Theranos making the issue infinitely more serious to boot).

Both could have possibly started really aiming to deliver, although at some point along the line of technical issues I am pretty sure they both also realized that what they had sold was not possible but decided to continue misrepresenting and selling it nevertheless.
 
Last edited:

Intrepid3D

Intrepid3D
cigwatch said:
There is also no Elite Dangerous vs Star Citizen, since they are two complete different games with two completely different game styles, and yet here we go, ED refugees!
Click to expand...

The thing that will be missing from SF entirely is the group experience, ED has that all be it to a more limited extent than SC.
 

thistle

T
metatheurgist said:
Uhhh, Liz Holmes was a college dropout with zero knowledge of medtech. She comes out of nowhere and says she has "revolutionary" tech that will detect multiple diseases with a simple blood test, even though according to the known science none of that was possible. Then she built a company to fake that and strung people along for years and billions.

Yeah, they have something in common alright.
Click to expand...
This like button is inexplicably stopping me adding all the likes this post deserves.
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Viajero said:
That describes both projects in a very accurate way indeed. One slight difference is that Theranos never managed to release a product, except some fraudulent trials and prototypes. Never managed to commercialize anything to the market. Their money came primarily from investors and contracts hoping for the best. Whereas CIG has managed to release a product (in early access) to the market and their money comes primarily from actual sales of a product sold as is. The product CIG has released is extremely crappy and broken as is, but it is a released product nonetheless.

The fraud angle in both cases (potential fraud in the case of CIG, actual in Theranos) is the same though: The willful misrepresentations and undelivered promises both got their money with (the health issues related to Theranos making the issue infinitely more serious to boot).

Both could have possibly started really aiming to deliver, although at some point along the line of technical issues I am pretty sure they both also realized that what they had sold was not possible but decided to continue misrepresenting and selling it nevertheless.
Click to expand...
Mind boggling, innit? It's like footie fans - the club might be crap but they believe in it. And one day the cup will be ours. They even eat the crappy Wurst sold at the stadium.
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Intrepid3D said:
The thing that will be missing from SF entirely is the group experience, ED has that all be it to a more limited extent than SC.
Click to expand...

Someone in the replies basically says if that is what you're focus on SC is about, then of course SF isn't going to scratch your itch, but for those players whose itch is scratched by:

Space or planet exploration
Ship battles and on-foot battles with NPCs
Ship building
Base building
etc, etc...
And a released product,

Then SF is going to deliver, while all SC can do is deliver dreams.
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
StuartGT said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/15fs3q3
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/15fs3q3/there_is_no_starfield_vs_star_citizen_they_are/
Click to expand...

Man, the comments are great.

Love how the OP writes an essay about how they can't be compared, while comparing them.

At the end of the day, SF will release, and it will probably be a good game that will scratch the itch of many players. Does this mean some SC backers will stop playing SC? Maybe, maybe not. Does this mean there will be a drop in funding of SC? Its certainly possible. Does this mean CIG will put out a massive ship sale around the date of release of SF? Most likely! Does this mean CR will tell the team to put all hands on deck to make some mockups of base building and the pioneer working for this year's citizencon? You bet your life!
 

WhiteHaulerMan

WhiteHaulerMan
Agony_Aunt said:
When SC eventually flops the faithful will blame anyone except CR. They will say the world wasn't ready for his genius, that backers didn't have enough faith, that its all the fault of refundians or Derek Smart.
Click to expand...
I dont think you can really ever call a game thats already made this type of money before release 'a flop'.

I mean, how does CiG Crowdfunding compare to the most profitable game of all time?
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
WhiteHaulerMan said:
I dont think you can really ever call a game thats already made this type of money before release 'a flop'.

I mean, how does CiG Crowdfunding compare to the most profitable game of all time?
Click to expand...

Compared to the most profitable games of all time? SC revenues are barely a noticeable blip. Plus none of those spent nearly as much as CIG developing (and marketing) them. SC still has the overall history record for the most money wasted in a video game though.

The game itself has been already released (in early access) and it is extremely crappy and broken, so as such it is already a flop.

The only real success in this story is for the salaries, wages and share buy backs of the management team and owners, Chris Roberts, his family, and former partners, measured in many tens of millions overall (based on salaries stated in the UK filings for Erin Roberts), probably not too far from 3 figure millions overall for the lot of them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom