The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
From that thread (edited for strong language):

"I doubt even EA/Ubisoft/Activison would wait till weeks out from release to say that the game is still a year out at least.
That was absolute straight out [cattle biowaste]. I had supported this game from day one until that. If they were so full of [biowaste] on the SQ42 then how is the rest of the project not that [expletive] up. I lost all faith in CIG and SC when that took place. There is no way on earth that was a surprise to anyone on senor CIG staff. It was painfully obvious when even the most basic tech that was supporting the game was still be shown off as "soon". Yet they all still had straight faces the whole time.
They probably knew 6 months at least before that the time line was [expletive]. If we were real share holders and not just [expletive] backers CR would be unemployed. It just amazes me that nothing seems to ever come to fruition minus ship sales. Yet we treat what other devs would call minor bug pass as a second coming of Christ, and we cant lap the teat fast enough.
And yet I still get the [expletive] corps bug in my [expletive] cockpit 50% of the time I spawn in."


Intense, but not a too bad way to put it, yes.

Agreed.

The problem to me has never been that what they want to do takes time. The fact that they at the end of the kickstarter only had a prototype and a script, and not much more meant that they needed to start a studio (or two) and THEN create the game should have been included in the original time calculation, two years from nothing to released game WITH the quality levels they wanted was too short a time.

Sure, they got more money and realize they could do MORE, then they should have proposed that idea from the start directly after kickstarter and not waited until the last second.

Im not worried, but it would be far less pressure on them if they had said 4 years instead of 2 because even starting ONE office and getting the people needed takes time and if 3-6 months to get a proper office and hire the people you need then you have lost a quarter of production time.
 
[video=youtube;rLUW5ppDjAE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLUW5ppDjAE[/video]

Idris endeavor prospector, espiria freelancer espiria starfarer gemini.

Aurora.

Prowler Vanguard.

espiria crucible freelancer tana..


I am bored...
 

Mu77ley

Volunteer Moderator
Really?
you think that someone enjoying a good game is hilarious? Why? I'd love to get a deeper perspective on that, becuase I love ED for many of the same reasons I love SC.
Is the fact that I love ED hilarious as well?

I have just one question. What game?

There is no game, just a couple of simplistic "press <<USE>>" missions, some terribly buggy FPS (if you can even get a match, so few people are playing it), and a lot of pointless running around empty corridors.

The only thing even remotely resembling fun is glitching out the airlock in your underpants, stealing somebody's chariot and destroying it (along with as many other shipss as possible in a ramming spree) before they can get to it. Rinse/repeat.

And even that is only fun for about 10 minutes.

- - - Updated - - -

And to correct a mistake, there's no oxygen in SC in space. If you walk outside without a space suit, you asphyxiate fairly quickly.

Now, that is a blatant lie.
 
Prepare your lulzbuckets folks!

http://www.redbull.com/en/games/stories/1331846115570/star-citizen-infographic-red-bull-games

Apparently funding has been linear since announcement! Also the most funded AAA game... that still doesn't have a game. Half a billion in funding apparently! :O

To be honest, i'm not sure if the article is being serious or its a parody....

Pff. You're late. That was posted three pages ago. :p

And yeah, it's probably as serious as the other shill pieces that have been cropping up the last couple of months: a hodge-podge of uninitiated nonsense, irrelevancies, complete fantasies, and regurgitations of standard CIG PR, leaving you only to wonder exactly how much CIG paid to have it published.
 
also nice...the statement that even now the game is earning 7,7 million dollars a month. Obviously.....Redbull doesnt do math (or drinks too much of its own product) as that would put Star Citizen at 1.5 years of development (a lil more then 18 months)....blatant lie or incompetent reporting? Take your pick or come up with a fantastic mind gymnastic that makes that viable :)

At this point I can pretty much disregard that piece as shilling material designed to lure people in...malicious intend very likely. Cant wait for the comment section to open up :)
 
also nice...the statement that even now the game is earning 7,7 million dollars a month. Obviously.....Redbull doesnt do math (or drinks too much of its own product) as that would put Star Citizen at 1.5 years of development (a lil more then 18 months)....blatant lie or incompetent reporting? Take your pick or come up with a fantastic mind gymnastic that makes that viable :)

At this point I can pretty much disregard that piece as shilling material designed to lure people in...malicious intend very likely. Cant wait for the comment section to open up :)

I found the error they did (it's even written in fine print under the monthly earning number)

They made the calculation based on the earnings for the last six months and extrapolated that to monthly earnings so I would say this is rather Red Bull's giving out crappy journalism that malicious intend from CIG.

That said, it gives INCREDIBLY skewed numbers and more than DOUBLE the earnings per month.
 
Last edited:
also nice...the statement that even now the game is earning 7,7 million dollars a month. Obviously.....Redbull doesnt do math (or drinks too much of its own product) as that would put Star Citizen at 1.5 years of development (a lil more then 18 months)....blatant lie or incompetent reporting? Take your pick or come up with a fantastic mind gymnastic that makes that viable :)

At this point I can pretty much disregard that piece as shilling material designed to lure people in...malicious intend very likely. Cant wait for the comment section to open up :)

Red bull...I don't drink the stuff (I like my body too much -mah sexy boooodehh) but I appreciate their nicely produced films and their sponsorship of interesting action sports. But what in the gate of hell was that write up all about?! Talk about take the cool edge off their brand...man that stuff embarrassing.

If it were all true to form I'd say cool but it's clearly not and is basically a pointless write up offering nothing in the way of verified infos.

Oh well, it's a chitty product anyway even if it did have my attention through its action sports association.
 
5.4m Kg...

Oi never heard of tons? Like in 5.400 tons? Or the number not big enough?...How about taking grams? 5.400.000.000 g ...looks stupid? Yes so does measuring a ship in Kg....

Sextillions dude......sextillions


Raises the same reaction from me as when I hear some stupid person say "I M SURE OF IT....200% GARANTUEED"
 
1.7M backers....always cracks me up :D

Well, it CAN be true but it could also be completely wrong.

- Is it based on game packages sold
- Is it based on actual ACCOUNTS
- Is it based on actual accounts that indeed bought a package each

- The first one would be inflated
- The second one even MORE so since it could just be forum accounts
- The third one COULD work, but it could also be inflated by people using multiple accounts

Either way we will never truly know.
 
Last edited:
Sextillions dude......sextillions


Raises the same reaction from me as when I hear some stupid person say "I M SURE OF IT....200% GARANTUEED"

1t = 1000kg 1kg = 1000g
10kg*1000 = 10000g
5.400.000 kg * 1000 = 5.400.000.000g

Or did i just misunderstood what you tried to say? [wacky]

Edit: I missunderstood :p cleared..
 
Last edited:
Prepare your lulzbuckets folks!

http://www.redbull.com/en/games/stories/1331846115570/star-citizen-infographic-red-bull-games

Apparently funding has been linear since announcement! Also the most funded AAA game... that still doesn't have a game. Half a billion in funding apparently! :O

To be honest, i'm not sure if the article is being serious or its a parody....

Going to be a small game if it's only 100 sextillion km3 when finished, actually that means it won't be any larger than it is right now :rolleyes:

- - - Updated - - -

Well, it CAN be true but it could also be completely wrong.

- Is it based on game packages sold
- Is it based on actual ACCOUNTS
- Is it based on actual accounts that indeed bought a package each

- The first one would be inflated
- The second one even MORE so since it could just be forum accounts
- The third one COULD work, but it could also be inflated by people using multiple accounts

Either way we will never truly know.

We know it's not true. Back in July last year they inadvertently announced they had 500,000 paid backers. That was at the time when they had just over 1.1 million Star Citizens iirc
 
Last edited:

Shame on you for posting my mugshot, Sir. :D (Nah, just kiddin'. I'd post a mugshot, but there are Americans around, and I don't feel like getting sued and being ordered by court to cough up millions of dollars (don't get your hopes up, I don't HAVE that kind of money!) 'cause of post-traumatic stress disorder . . .

3,2,1, joke from Germany (adapted to SC): "Chuck Norris has taken over CIG. SC 1.0, with all promised features, will be released tomorrow at 07:30." (Originally, this was about the "new" airport of Berlin, which has been suffering delays and delays and delays . . . wait . . . I guess CR has been a consultant. :D (Okay, cheap shot. Then again, he deserves it.)
 
Last edited:
We know it's not true. Back in July last year they inadvertently announced they had 500,000 paid backers. That was at the time when they had just over 1.1 million Star Citizens iirc

Yup. They're using the standard CIG white lie about how “citizens” in the funding tracker = backers, when we know for a fact that it 1) counts RSI accounts, per Turbulent's slip-up; 2) it counts every account ever made, including closed, banned, and refunded accounts; 3) that you don't need to back anything to get an account to begin with; 4) that you can have multiple accounts; 5) that even during the heydays, less than half of the citizens were actually paying accounts.

We know for certain that the number has absolute nothing to do with the number of backers, and it would be very presumptuous to assume the number of paying accounts — much less actual backers — is even close to 800k.
 
I remember a time when "Agent Smithing" was going to be a thing, something like any accounts you owned could function as NPCs on your ship instead of you having to hire them. That caused a huge upsurge in paid accounts. There were also all those accounts given away to people via AMD GPU promotions.
Would be interesting to know the number of current unique paid backers.

---

Hangars are getting refactored (again?) 6 mins 46 secs if timestamp doesn't work.

[video=youtube;OfcsyRwyJCY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfcsyRwyJCY&t=6m46s[/video]
 
And what you are talking about here would not actually be fraud because now we get into the meat of bookkeeping.

Here's a good link: http://www.accountingtools.com/questions-and-answers/what-is-the-accounting-for-sales-discounts.html

In short, they can easily present their backer amount as gross sales based on X product sold as Y price without reducing the amounts due to discounts or taxes

Sure, they COULD show a breakdown on discounts, tax incentives and other information but they do not have to.
And then they simply have to report the discounts so that the employee and company pay the right taxes.

It's a simplification but there is nothing illegal going on there.

That link specifically refers to sales discounts which are intended to recognise a company having structured payment arrangements in place which offer defined discounts for payment within specified periods.

In short it has nothing to do with staff discount schemes because the discounts provided by such a scheme aren't made as a result of such arrangements, they are simply a reduction in the price of the item made by reason of the buyer's employment.

If the same arrangements as you highlighted can be applied to a simple staff discount scheme, where the discount is not offered based on early payment but is merely a benefit made available to the employee by reason of their employment you may well consider it to be merely a simplification (again strictly from an accounting perspective) and I can understand that position.

However if the full undiscounted value of a package sold under such arrangements is being published to the tracker when the actual revenue received by the company for the package would be considerably less, I'd actually call that an obfuscation since the entire purpose of the tracker is to indicate gross sales and the entire purpose of the arrangements you referred to is to reduce the value of gross sales on the balance sheet.

The tracker is to all intents and purposes a marketing tool, not an accounting one and I think most people would reasonably assume that sales of (for example) £10,000 on there for a given day mean £10,000 of revenue received directly from sales, not (again, for example) £5,000 received due to a £10,000 package being bought at a 50% discount by an employee.

IF it's actually happening obviously - I have no idea at all whether it is or not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom