In Roman times, if Chris's customer was not state or some high politician, he could had run this scheme as long as there are gullible people, and without any legal consequences. Roman idea about "consumer protection" was "caveat emptor", "buyer beware" outright scamming was legal...Backer suggests that if this was Roman times SC critics would be fed to the lions.
It prompted some hilarious replies on refunds.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Some of you may have come across this guy. He immediately attacks anyone who is critical of SC. He is incapable of discussing the game in a civil manner. I wouldn't normally post his insanity, but this one takes the biscuit.
To be fair, when called out on it, he did acknowledge he was wrong, before immediately calling the person calling him out a troll.
Well, thanks for the answer, although perhaps they should have confirmed they could do hundreds or thousands of player battles before selling everyone on the idea of it right? And before selling ships with crew compliments larger than the server limits.
At least you also put "should be" in the last sentence as well rather than "will be". Nice to see you acknowledge its not guaranteed.
What he said was:
He was going off what he knew at the time. CIG put it in that way. Maybe the general sentiment was that it was a bug (you might recall people saying it was a good feature and that nowhere should be safe, although those tend to be the same people who want SC to be a full loot shooter). Bug, not bug, that was the situation at the time. On top, there are lots of other design choices, deliberate ones, that people might not like the idea of. We've discussed Death of a Spaceman plenty of times to know not everyone likes it, even if you and others do.
One thing I have noted... leaving previous years' development stagnancy where it belongs... Ci¬G and the more 'optimistic' backers (to avoid using derogatory terms) are using 2022 as a restarting or reimagining of the 2016 pre 3.0 to present era where the entire development of Star Citizen is on the cusp of 'becoming'....which happens per chance to also be a clever marketing strategy. They've dangled server meshing (or sharding) as well as the supposedly imminent release of another star system to reimagine themselves...the same could be said of those 'optimistic' backers.
..and yes, you're quite correct in your description of what I imagined when I first pulled the trigger and backed the project. I've struggled to explain exactly what my thinking and expectations behind backing Star Citizen were back then and what they are currently, @VR Golgot hit the nail on the head there. We're all still hanging out waiting for something half decent to accidentally happen... totally despite the Idiot Roberts and not because of him
I am the same. The whole idea just swept me along, and the ships are just amazing, no one can deny that. Especially as i love science fiction. Little did i know back in 2013 how real the term "science fiction" was going to prove for SC.
Back then though, backers had no idea it was going to take quite this long. They never said, you might see a slight return on your investment in 13 years. No promises. Thanks for the cash though/
Which is how it feels nowadays.
Oh some of us did. We just got downvoted to oblivion immediately by stating it, or banned from forums. That's why that voice of dissent had disappeared from quite some time (it made a return on Reddit recently though).
2 to 3 years. Any longer and things will get stale - Chris Roberts
One of the few truthful things that has come out of his mouth.
I dunno i recently uttered some mild dissent on the subreddit and got lynched by the cult.
Me: Star Citizen won't be released until 2018 at the earliest.
Them: You're just a hater. You're a troll. You don't understand game development.
Me:
He knew something (and though falsely it was a feature) at the time and choose to post about it without verifying (the bug was in 3.15 and we are in 3.16 now and the bug is gone). It's just a proof that he's not a good journalist.
"maybe that sounds fun to you" is "present tense" and you are really sensitive to it when a backers use it to talk good about SC. I haven't heard you talking about it's use here.
Real journalists don't review alpha games. Because you can't be sure what is a bug or a bad planned feature if it's not cleary explained by the company, if what you say now will be true the next month or if what you like about the game will disapear in 2 patches. I liked a lot the squares in the hud to land, they are gone now. Delamar is gone and should come back, but a journalist can't say "it will come back".
For me, battle with hundred of players is doable in SC, not thousand. But it's just my opinion. If CIG want to try to do it, I just wait to see it and will not say 'impossible'. Server limit is 50 now, we don't know for the future. It's alpha.
60 years between the first plane and the first man on moon, if I was asked in 1900 if humanity can fly to the moon in 60 years, I would have say it was not doable. The first game I've made (for my leisure on C64) was limited to less than 50Ko in memory. The last game I made (serious game in Flash), the picture of the splashscreen only was 500 Ko. I started to work with 12K modem and now, it's common for french users to have 540 Mb/s.
I put "will" because, for me, the actual alpha 'is' already better than all other spaces games. I don't see in a near or far future how CIG could ruin what exist now to the point it's in worse shape than it is now. It's not guaranteed for sure but I'll say, for me, 98% guaranteed.
Last edited:
Coversely, real games are not in alpha for ten years.
No, it's fine. What will be delivered, should be superior. The thing is that it won't, because it's too ambitious and too mismanged.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
You still seem not wanting to acknowledge that SC is not just one more alpha like other games.
SC alpha is very different than other alphas in that it is still ongoing after 10+ years of development, and estimated to have at the least a few more, and has wasted 400+ millions without a beta, never mind a release date, in sight.
Such an alpha is totally worthy of journalists reviewing it and/or discussing its development in depth because it precisely is indicative of technical and management problems several orders of magnitude worst than most other alphas, including the possibility of fraud.
Last edited:
Bull.
Nothing wrong with reviewing alpha games as long as you make it clear its alpha. Alpha is not the shield from criticism that backers want it to be. You can perfectly say "This is alpha, and this is the direction its going, and i do/don't like it"
And i'm sure you don't raise any complaints when a journalist writes a positive article about the state of SC. Or do you? Do you write "real journalists don't review alpha games"? Did you say that when gamestar.de wrote gushing article after gushing article about SC?
Add onto that, CR's multiple statements basically saying he considered the game released, and backers like yourself who wax lyrical about what an awesome game it is to play right now, better than any other game you've played in your life, then there is no way alpha should be a shield against criticism.
If people are allowed to say how good it is, people should be allows to say how bad it is.
"Real games" never try to do what CIG is trying to do.
"Real games" shut off all risky features (the ones that takes forever to do and with an uncertain deliverability). When it's too complex, they cut and you get a game pretty similar to what exist on the market.
That's why we fund CIG, to let a company took these riks. And for now, I already love the result.
ED for exemple is a "real game" so there is very little chance that ship interiors will be added in the game.
Look, i get it: that MOP editorial really annoyed you. And the single mistake is an easy way for you to dismiss the opinions that many (including Mole here) agree with.
But real journalists do review alpha games, ones that are in Early Access (i.e. "playable now" and charging money), would you like me to list some?
Because they are not. See my precedent message.
Take money like a charity while shareholders give themselves dividends? You're right!
Review of alpha games with important missing features or mechanism like server meshing ? Yes, I want your list.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
You mean this?:
Well, that is the usual fan "ambition/fidelity explains everything" response.
You still seem to fail to acknowledge that there is also a very simple and straightforward explanation for a 10+ year alpha that has burnt through 400+ millions, all without a beta, never mind a release date, in sight: Predatory and misrepresentation based marketing, and significant technical / management problems. Given CIG´s and Chris Roberts personal track record this scenario is far from being a remote possibility.
Most other alphas are not like this. Journalists are perfectly justified to analyse whatever aspect of the development they so wish.
Last edited: