oh you...../giggles
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
oh you...../giggles
Anyone fancy suggesting that a link to the pledge be added to the SC reddit FAQ page? https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/wiki/info
To my mind it would fit in nicely as item 3 in the list at the top, after 'What is Star Citizen?' and 'The Vision'.
To my mind it would fit in nicely as item 3 in the list at the top, after 'What is Star Citizen?' and 'The Vision'.
Inspired by Trump tracker, Goons have a Star Citizen Tracker. eye-opening to wee what's missing after 146m + 6 yrs
... in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."
Your name dropping that many times was utterly ridiculous even if you were the big bad man they set you out to be.
It was the strategy though I guess because look what it accomplished. (Nobody can utter a concern without being a DS demon) only it probably backfired a bit on them in the end clearly...as you don't poke a lion and expect not to get bit
.as an editor I'm heavily offended by the cutting style of their "it's hard to make a video game" video. Often they cut beteeen two close up shots in interviews to make devs are saying more clear...but it was just eye gouging.
Go to broll please
Don't mention the pledge. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.
Hey Merlin
,It's great that you're having fun with SC. If you knew with 100% certainty that no more updates would be made, due to some unforeseen calamity, how would you rate it? Would you recommend it to your friends?
All things aside, I don't believe that holding CIG to EVERY single promise is productive. Nitpicking does nothing to a) make us seem reasonable and b) focus on what is really important which is actually getting a game out. There are core promises which effectively produce a game that is enjoyable, playable and immersive (frankly fidelity can take a long walk off a short pier) but there are 'stretch goals' and details which make us look like entitled wazziks trying to enforce. I only say this because of the whole debacle with people throwing their proverbial toys over personally invested features in ED. They came across as petulant and unreasonable and frankly doing the same to CIG has the same effect on us. The bigger picture should be getting them to shift focus onto getting the game out and cohesive (i.e. dropping the whole separate module development alpha release approach) and letting go of hyperdetail anchors holding them back. Seeing CIG succeed will be a win win situation unless your goal is to see them fail...
But why when they take $$$ and feature the dev result of that portion of the $$$ can we just let them off with a "wel despite what you said about not increasing the feature creep we'll let it slide".
If they are banking on such a high level off these advertised goals then why is it okay to let them slide? Charity? This whole project has been a charity to CR. not in the legal sense of course but money, so much money based on nothing more than mis directed hype and ignorance of development.
None of that money should have been virtually spent as it came in. It was part of their business model to keep momentum and to let them off that is deplorable imho.
we are not entitled, CR is entitled and this letting him off the hook incessantly is ridiculous. (Imho)
Last edited:
Do you see any evidence that CIG are beginning to think like that? Because I don't, and I can't see it happening as long as the project is driven by Chris Roberts' grandiose 'vision'. Or, to take a more cynical view, as long as the project is driven by the need to make more money from pre-orders based on the 'vision', and from the endless hype that goes with it. Cut back on the impossible promises, and the funds might dry up...
Just putting out a reasoned point of view, I don't disagree with you but saying 100% of the promised results must be there on release is not realistic. Showing some humbleness and actually making an effort to not use marketing smoke and mirrors might be a little less necessary if they hadn't built a foundation of impossible promised might work well in their favor but holding reasonable expectations might benefit us too.
LOL!!! I don't even know how to respond to this. So I'll just continue laughing because, truly, that's some hilarious stuff right there.
I think the tracker is being a bit generous. I wouldn't consider any of the ships "complete" before all of the game play mechanics they'll have to support are in place. Plus the inevitable overhaul they'll all have to have in a few years when the "fidelity" has fallen too far behind the curve (and the game is still unreleased).
As CiG admitted and many players confirm balancing isnt done as well so no....none of the ships is "complete"
Really? So reasonable is out the window and lowering the pass mark for release is beyond the realms? Granted they're a bunch of shady characters but remember that there are thousands of people that have put their money into this, are emotionally invested and want their game. The whole "if I can't have it then no-one can" approach is pretty dank in my opinion.
To elucidate on my position, I'm not saying let go of the stretch goals all together but this is supposed to be a game (if ever released) that is going to receive ongoing development to subsequently meet stretch goals - it's seems a little purile to stack up a list of "did not meet" results when the game is in early dev. BTW I have no love for CIG, I think CR is a plonker but I also want to see the game get made and I don't want to see the backers of it (regardless of how foolhardy they are) out of pocket.
Last edited:
CIG: Give us more money and we'll release the game with X!
Player: Oooh I really want X
Player: Please take this money.
CIG: You're not getting X at release - we'll think about it later (probably much later).
CIG shouldn't promise features they can't deliver, especially when they have taken the money for them.
I think it's Ok to hold them to their promises, promises that people have paid for.
Last edited:
Pragmatically, this is the only option. Let CIG deliver something that resembles a game, and don't hold them to everything the committed to. Because some sort of game is better that the development paralysis they seem to be in. It's not ideal, and I'm sure many customers won't go along with it, and for them, the recourse if to apply for a refund.
CIG has been hoist by its own petard, making ridiculous promises that it had no chance of delivering. But they might just be capable of delivering something (even just S42) if they let Erin Roberts run the company, and make CR non-executive President of the 'Verse.
Perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but you've got to give them the chance to redeem themselves.
That would be fine if they were funding the game themselves, and not asking for money for features (i.e. stretch goals).
Or we could just accept that CIG is rubbish and we'll agree to take whatever garbage they feel like giving us (lets make the best of a bad thing).
I think they should be held to their promises.
Last edited:
Doesn't matter if it's company X or Y, if they ask people for money to support development of a product, it better be very close to what the design brief says.
If not anyone and his grandmother can make up a dream product and ask for money without delivering. There must be some kind of accountancy or it's just going to be insane to give anyone money
if there isn't a real product.
Last edited:
- Status