How many of those fans have spent thousands of dollars on said game, before its release?
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
I have no idea, neither do you. Nor does it even matter. If you have some point to make about a computer game you should be able to make it without online creeping on the same handful or so of weird fans year after year. Gossiping about them is just... sad.
It's not gossip. The guy loudly publicly advertises it all the time. You are desperately attempting to make it sound like we are picking on just another hyped fan. Of course games have fans. I'm asking you if you have any other examples of a "hyped fan" having spent thousands of dollars on a game other than Star Citizen that has not been released?
My guess is you don't have an example. And you won't have an example because Chris Roberts is running a confidence scam. Fans "hyped" about No Man's Sky, for example, didn't spend thousands on it before release because Hello Games wasn't running a confidence scam.
Got it?
But you apparently have many examples of 'hyped fans' who bought into an unfeasible product and judge or slate them.
People are people and will pay for what they pay for.
I bought a £3000 liquorice thong, now that may sound insane to you but it was very F'king tasty
my bad It is Not up to you or your Shills to dictate what an individual will or is willing to pay for an item and judge them on it.
In (I might add) the most meaningless individualistic way possible.
Pug
I'm pretty sure two dozen is 24? unless of course it's a bakers dozenJust ignore Jorunn...everybody else does
Pug
It's not normal? I and lots of others bought into Project cars long before it was released (lesser magnitude) I'm sure there are numerous examples.
I also believe Elite was crowd funded in it's carnation?
You received something- In earlier posts I believe you and your shills bought into the concept that we had received 'Nothing' for our money?
BTW The actual amount is arbitrary.
Pug
I am not making it sound normal, I am saying it is irrelevant. I know you are relatively new here, but I gave up on SC years before you even joined these forums. I don't care about your constant 'you are with us or against us' tribal attitude: no matter how crappy SC is mocking individual gamers behind their backs doesn't prove anything about whatever game it is about, it merely shows whomever does it is a pretty mediocre person.
In my entire life I never spend a single dime on any single CR game. I am not going to spend a cent on SC. The dude strikes me as a thoroughly incompetent blowhard, and I see no way for this game to ever get anywhere. But what fellow gamers do with their money is not my problem, and ridiculing them behind their backs is just really crappy behavior. Quote and dispute the heck out of anything any CIG dev or CEO says, be my guest. But this is just sad.
Last edited:
Its not about the time when you spend money, its about the quantity. Spending thousands, or even tens of thousands, of dollars on a game is clearly abnormal, statistically speaking. It, on itself, doesn't really mean anything about the game other than that a small number of people really care about it. If the project is truly terrible it can (and should) be demonstrated without taking pot shots at these people. Attacking, mocking, insulting or ridiculing fellow gamers because they are more enthousiastic about a game we don't like is just petty crap.
And in the end, it isn't up to me to judge how some retired boomer spends his money anyway. Regardless of how crappy SC is.
True. (Aside from the weird 'Shills' bit.)
But when people are so deeply into sunk cost, having spent $1000s like Jorunn on an incomplete product, it’s fine to take the mickey out of their bizarre mental gymnastics about that product. Not his enjoyment of it, but his perpetual attempts to make it seem more whole, and more stupendous, to others.
It’s fine if you wanna buy a liquorice mankini. But sitting on a down payment of liquorice, naked, while tweeting ecstatically about it will get people laughing and pointing
. It’s tragi-comic.As I put it to Mole once when he asked why someone obsessively buying expensive shoes was any different:
Your comparison is flawed friend. You’re leaving out some fundamental differences which distinguish SC from many other forms of luxury self-indulgence.
Last edited:
Who cares really?
You've been Trumped bud.
This is not a political statement moderators, akin to the statement "you've been trumped" e.g. playing cards (Top Trumps 1978)
Pug
There are broadly speaking two camps that do, but from pretty much the opposite direction.
Those who want to want to illustrate the highly predatory, exploitative, and borderline abusive monetisation schemes of this supposed “game development” (and demonstrate the pretty tragic victims of those strategies), and those who want to try to paint that behaviour as somehow being normal (in many cases because they want to avoid being painted as the tragic victims).
I believe a 'shill' is a confidence trickster or someone who tries to make you 'buy' into their way of thinking. No difference to the many opinions in this forum, in my opinion.True. (Aside from the weird 'Shills' bit.)
But when people are so deeply into sunk cost, having spent $1000s like Jorunn on an incomplete product, it’s fine to take the mickey out of their bizarre mental gymnastics about that product. Not his enjoyment of it, but his perpetual attempts to make it seem more whole, and more stupendous, to others.
It’s fine if you wanna buy a liquorice mankini. But sitting on a down payment of liquorice, naked, while tweeting ecstatically about it will get people laughing and pointing
As I put it to Mole once when he went for the 'It’s just like someone obsessively buying expensive shoes' rationale:
Your comparison is flawed friend. You’re leaving some fundamental differences out.
Please take the Mickey, just don't be surprised when other people point out your small mindedness.
Who cares what shoes other people buy and there willingness to pay for them.
Each to their own, the other point is It Is Their Money and they can buy as many liquorice mankini's as they like. They may even taste horrible but as they have spent alot of money they will say they taste good, even if they taste like poo.
Who are we/you to decry them?
Pug
Well, they certainly didn't get any games.
Nobody is asking anyone to ignore SC or CIG. Some people are merely politely asking if it is really, truly and absolutely essential to be a royal dingleberry to other gamers behind their backs just to make some point about how crappy some computer game is. I know Star Citizen is a Big Deal, and I'd hate to get in the way of this Crusade you guys have going, but I am still unsure why it is so absolutely essential to be bungholes about it. Is it really impossible to just focus on the game and the people responsible for it, and leave random individuals who are having fun out of it?
You've dodged the entire argument there about why this is different. I'll try again:
If the liquorice mankini tastes like poo, but the excited fan says tells everyone it tastes like liquorice, is that ok? If they get bonus liquorice mankinis for every X number of people they convince to buy some, does that change your view? If the fan tells everyone that by buying one you will help change edible clothing forever, spawning a new range of mankinis (including one which tastes like a full roast dinner with, bonus blueberry pie), and that their experience of wearing the liquorice underwear confirms this will come to pass, is that a problem? If they're just sitting on a pile of liquorice the whole time, constantly pestering the strawberry lace forum to come join them, does it strike you that maybe it's worthy of some kind of comment? Possibly even an intervention?
See to me all of that stuff matters. Certainly as a whole. But you just want to reduce it down to: 'It's just individual choice, and no one else is affected'. And you would be wrong
What you've got to get is: It's not the individual's personal enjoyment that's being criticised. It's their behaviour surrounding that, the behaviour of the company that encourages them, and the impact they have on others in their pursuit of that blueberry mankini dream...
Nope:
Doesn't really fit what happens in this thread, does it. Like at all
Last edited:
@Ian Skippy @Pug The point is that finding consumers paying tens of thousands of dollars before a product is released, in a market where similar products cost $60, is a pattern indicative of a scam.