Ignorance is Strength, comrade.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
How? Isnt SC continous development dependant on the money pouring in? And due to spite pledging and doubling down it seems that there hasnt been any worries about money coming in if the funding tracker can be believed. Am I spoiling peoples entertainment by speaking badly of Star Ciizen? How does that work exactly? Why do people care about what I think? Because my words can prevent potential suckers to get involved? Well I hope so but that would mean I cherish my posts too much, I dont think anybody is hanging his purchase decision onto what I or other skeptics write.
Because it could all very well be simply "hate-speech" so why worry? The games quality alone should be enough to convince people right? And it works for people who prioritize graphics over gameplay.
Seriously. If you think whatever I write endangers peoples future enjoyment of the game then you need to explain that a little further.
I am well aware how bad press works. The question is tho if Star Citizen deserves that bad press or criticism. You show very clearly that you dont care about the truth in the matter because above all, you want the project to succeed against all the warning signs and red flags. If something doesnt work well then that should be pointed out and not argued or attempted to hide. That would be deceptive and would only end with people who wouldnt want to get involved in the first place to get locked in which creates more dissent, disappointment etc. You basically advertise to lie, cheat and fool people in order to ensure the projects survival.
If thats required for SC to survive (and not its inherent qualities) then maybe it doesnt deserve to survive?
No its not, and I dont use it willy nilly. In Star Citizens case tho I think its warranted because the potential for abuse and deception is so strong by now, supported by several examples out of CIGs history that I consider it very likely that it is by now a running scam. Thats my opinion tho. I dont have to prove that in court. All I have are my thoughts about this and I m perfectly willing to share them if asked. If other people share my worries or logical conclusions they will stay away from the project. If they dont care about my arguments they will get involved.
If the project proves to be a scam and people continue to defend it they only demonstrate how utterly stupid or gullible they are. Cant say I have pity with such people. They have stopped being victims and turned into enablers. Same as drug addicts trying to hook other people up in order to fund their own high. At that point I would feel it as my moral obligation to warn others to stay clear.
Oh and Star Citizen still isnt a space sim
No doubt thats why most projects in development have to produce tangible results in a certain timeframe or lose support. Now CIG is utilizing various strategies to prevent pressure of that kind. First they use and abuse private people without any knowledge about game development which means they can tell them whatever. Seriously.....some of the latest explanations would ve made CIG the laughing stock of the industry or get Roberts fired on the spot if it was directed at professionals instead of private clueless people. Next CIG ensures that backers have no say, no power, no rights by continously stripping them of any rights as stated in their TOS. Today people are allowed to spend money and log in, thats about it.
But Star Citizen has received so much goodwill that false claims would be unable to threaten it in any way. Also if something is not a scam baseless accusations usually end in the sand. Star Citizens current state and CIGs actions over the years have ensured that people start to worry and the rumor of it being a scam becomes more and more probable. Its CIGs responsebility to address this and prove accusators wrong. Not the fans. Because sorry to say but the fans have no clue how to answer those questions. Fans know exactly as much as the critics. As you showed amiably the difference is that one group is more then willing to gloss over potential red flags, signs and risks in order to keep playing.
I on the other hand wonder (and ask) if Star Citizen even has the chance to become what it promised to be. Based on what I know today I d say no...it doesnt. And if time proves me right then its not ME being responsible for its failure. Its Star Citizens or rather CIGs for not being able to produce it.
lol no I wont. Why? Because I dont care about ED in this regard. I consider ED a good solid game but if there suddenly were to be accusations of embezzlement then I wouldnt rise to its defense. Its not my responsibility. I dont have the required information or insight to do so and above all I would be very interested if the accusations are true or not. Brabens priority would be to get rid of those accusations quickly so I would wait what he has to say. Why do you think it would be my task to get involved?
I would like to play Odyssey but I dont have to force its development because above all its not my call. I can only hope that Frontier can do it. Truth be told I have a lot more confidence in Frontier then I do CIG but thats not bias or hate. Its simply experience and knowledge based on CIGs track record so far. In addition I dont have to buy into Odyssey until its released. Pre-orders or pledges are not required. Frontier is producing Odyssey without our money or participation. I dont feel like my entertainment is at risk here because if it fails I still have ED to play. Thats not going anywhere. I even have the luxury to wait and see if Odyssey is worth my money. I dont have to invest now, pay full prize or much much more and "hope" that it ll turn out to be any good.
You really have it wrong here but I do understand why you argue on this forum now. Its just for all the wrong reasons.
No doubt the power of the SC cult swarm is real. First seen in the witch hunt against Derek Smart years ago but you can observe it in any comment section of video or article that "dares" to speak badly of SC. It doesnt work that well anymore because the numbers have shrunk I guess or more people are on to the despicable stuff CIG does.
…and the actual reaction in those cases would still be “oh? well, hope that gets sorted then…” and then life goes on.
Just because SC fanboys are as unhinged as you describe doesn't mean that this is a normal behaviour. It's definitely not a behaviour you can arbitrarily and baselessly ascribe to other people without being called out for it. What you're saying is false for the simple reason that the whole premise relies on assumptions about normality that are wholly separated from reality.
Only if you want it to fit so much that you can't see past it
So the vertical slice of a game that didn't exist. Squadron 42 being near completion and someone from cig having played every level six years ago... Come now.
And Lethality has garnered a solid reputation all over the place as a genuine harbinger of failure. It's strange the kind of luminaries this project has managed to gather up over the years.
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
As someone who is not following this project closely, I believe the whole 'developent' is past it's infancy and it is now an established cult. The followers accepted that alpha is permanent and they are happy to pour money continuously into this pile of unfinished features and assets.
So why are all the people at the top of this thing sitting flush? When all of your sales are based off lies and false promises of things you know you can't accomplish what is it?
Ponzi? Check.
Bait and switch? Check.
Roberts in his multi million dollar mansion and supposidly that isnt his only new property.
If its not a scam.... what is it?
- +300M but they could run into financial trouble cause some random dude on the internet said it's a scam.
Two questions you haven't answered yet plus two new ones:
- Given the lack of any moons or planets in 3.10 or 3.11, how long will it take CIG to finish the 2nd system or the 3rd, etc.?
- Why do you think Chris and Sandi have disappeared? What is your theory?
- What happened to the Idris Attack mission that "Inside Star Citizen" said was coming in 3.9? That was just an empty ship!
- Why is the Squadron 42 video still not published, almost two months after its announcement? It's just an update video!
I'll add to the list if you dont mind:
- why do you feel the need to bash other games in order to "defend" SC ?
- And speaking of white knighting, why do you feel the need to defend that product, or CiG, like your life depends on its reputation ?
- Why is it that SC is the only non-released game with such a rabid fanbase they'll send death threats to editors who publish less-than-stellar reviews of the said product, or just publish known verifiable facts about CRoberts and co ?
- And then why could not we criticize that product at all, since you claim it's a game, and you have tens of hours of fun in it, which means it can be reviewed ?
- In the case the answer to the previous question is "but it's just an alpha !!" then why do you say it's better than other games ? Comparison means review.
CIG have encouraged people to make an "in development" videogame the third largest purchase of their lives by offering assets for thousands of dollars,
It's like watching a slow motion fire festival with an added layer of sunk cost fallacy. Now the main faces behind the scheme are quietly slipping away while it remains an unstable alpha.
Its difficult to see them suddenly finding the path back to a decent robust product, the tech debt is phenomenal, the history of promised features extensive
It's like watching a slow motion fire festival with an added layer of sunk cost fallacy. Now the main faces behind the scheme are quietly slipping away while it remains an unstable alpha.
Its difficult to see them suddenly finding the path back to a decent robust product, the tech debt is phenomenal, the history of promised features extensive
Last edited:
It's not a Ponzi, if it was early backers would have got something back for suckering more people in
Its worth noting that many questions surrounding Star Citizen address topics that people with active access are not better to answer then people without. Because many questions dont even touch gameplay issues and the ones that do are beyond doubting easily verified via life streams and videos. Except for the "feeling of immersion" or maybe "fun" there is nothing that would make you more qualified to answer if you were an active backer. Oh sure regarding the gameplay details as well, not gonna debate that.
I get that people refuse criticism from others outside their little club but you gonna consider that even opinions from within the club are refused and denied. It simply doesnt matter if you an active backer or a bystander. If you are in for 45 bucks or thousands. If you are a random private person or an expert in a connected field. The only thing that matters is if you are pro or contra. And thinking like "what if that guys is right?" never even comes to the surface. Its a blind kneejerk reaction that bars logic or realistic worldview = fanaticism
I love it when the thread gets all interesting...
Yeah its nice to reap rewards (entertainment) for free isnt it?
The "silent exit strategy" has been suggested years ago so I cant say this is shocking ^^ Additionally CIG has a track record of staying silent in dire times when silence becomes awkward or even fans insecurity. At this point I wouldnt be surprised either way. CIG collapsing because the CEO and his family have withdrawn or Chris Roberts coming out stating "everything is fine". With the type of people who are left supporting this project actively thats all it would take for many to go on.
It's not a Ponzi, if it was early backers would have got something back for suckering more people in
Maybe thats only because we dont have all the details? Some people certainly act as if sucking more people into it is how they earn money
They call it referal code.It's not a Ponzi, if it was early backers would have got something back for suckering more people in
The space sim is already here, I feel playing a space simulator in the alpha. I woke in a bed in station, go to a shop buying some ammo. Eat and drink a little before calling my ship. My ship wait me at a pad while I take the elevator to it. I left the security of the station to the void of space, turn around my ship to inspect it (in a roleplay manner), open the door of my ship and walk to my seat. I choose a combat mission, or an investigation mission in cave, or an investigation mission at Covalex (investigation in EVA, love those ones), a delivery mission, etc. I turn on my ship and left the station. I go and do my mission. I come back to a station to log off or just quit the alpha in the bed of my ship. Sometimes I succeed in my mission, sometime I loose and sometimes the alpha crash/bug. Other times, I don't finish the mission because a friend had destroyed his ship while mining and need urgent help, because he will die of heat alone in a moon in 20 min...
Reading this forum, it seems a lot of you just refuse the idea that the alpha has gameplay now. It's bugged sometimes but for the mission I like to do, it often works well. I earn money, I have pleasure in alpha and I plan to buy a miner ship.
I will talk about it on another response.
I have no theory, it doesn't matter for me who is in charge of the alpha if CIG still try to keep their promises.
I've heard a rumor somewhere (here ?) that Sandi and Chris are divorcing. If true, personnal problems are a good reason to step back a little from public life.
I haven't tested it. For what I know, they have try it with Evocati but it was not ready (too buggy or too laggy ?) so they removed it from testing. The ship was never meant to be boarded, just destroyed by the players. Idris, Javelin and other monster ships have no or partial interiors atm, CIG had never announced they had finished the inside. There are 2 missions where you can board ships, a caterpillar and a 890.
Don't know. I guess CR had blocked it (after having allowed it) because 'not perfect enough ™' at the beginning. And now had changed his mind and want to show it at a special occasion.
I don't recall having bashed a game here (or elsewhere). Every game that give fun to its player base need respect.
I don't feel a white knight. I just discuss about the alpha in the thread about the alpha. It seems we are very few to be positive here and I try to be honest. I defend SC here because I like this alpha and I have spare time. Everyone has a reason to post here, what's yours (genuine question) ?
I didn't know they were such fanboys. They have mental disorders and should be prosecuted. You find mentaly instable persons in every big game now.
I never said such a thing ! You can criticize SC and I have the right to discuss about it with you. You can review it too, I just say that what you review is not the final game. The alpha is always changing (sorry but it's alpha !), what's true one month can be false another month (hover mode for instance). Something ty (wow, the forum change the word sh***ty !) can became good and become ty again in 6 months. Some says here that the multiplay is void. It's true except for the mining gameplay and some dogfight missions. But if the plan is kept by CIG, the multiplay will see huge enhancement in the future. You can say multiplay is rubbish, I can say the mining multiplay is good and other multiplays are not really here yet.
SC is not better than other games. I don't recall having said that SC is better from ED for instance. They are different.
For me, I am pretty old and I had played a lot of games. I know I'm very found of EVA gameplay and SC already fulfill this desire in its actual state. I've come to ED and play it now only to be ready for Odyssey.
CIG is not perfect and some practices are borderline but I have fun in the alpha and I just spent 45$ on it. I don't feel cheated at all by CIG, it's not the case for some established AAA released games I've bought.
Last edited: