I totally have not interest in this game because i don't like sci fi it's just not my thing but i have been through all the threads about this and i will put what i want to say like this.
Say you was building a house and it was going to cost you £250,000 and you was given a date but then all of a sudden you have to pay 4x that, but the house is still not built a year later than it was suppose to be, would you just say oh it's fine nothing to worry about here ?
But why does what the trolls are saying need to be said at all? What good will it do? Smearing the project is only going to hurt the chances of its success, thereby jeopardizing the investment made by all the backers. It will do absolutely no good. If the project fails, the backers aren't getting their money back. If the project succeeds, the backers aren't getting their money back. What's at stake is the game itself. The project will get more support if people aren't slandering the developers during the creation process. Let them deliver their product and then everyone can judge for themselves whether what was promised was delivered.
Not all detractors are trolls. The people who hurt games the most are fanboys. I always have to say it, but fanboys destroy games.
Actually, sycophants ruin most things. If you're working in an echo-chamber where everyone is constantly praising you and defending your work, it's going to lead to problems. The person patting your back is never your friend.
I for one hope very much that Star Citizen succeeds. I'd love to see Derek Smart eat a huge shit sandwich over all this. He's a deplorable human being who's out to ruin something that a lot of people are working very hard to see realized.
because an "internet troll" has the power to ruin a 100 Million dollar game?
Wow...I guess EA is in alot of shit then.
EA isn't developing crowd-funded games. And to answer your question, I hope the answer is "no". But what he's doing is certainly not helping anyone.
Even if the "internet trolls" were able to stop people funding completely, the only way it can hurt SC is if CIG does not have the founds to finish the game. Which would then validate what the "internet trolls" have been saying.
exactly.
Post of the day!!!!
But why does what the trolls are saying need to be said at all? What good will it do? Smearing the project is only going to hurt the chances of its success, thereby jeopardizing the investment made by all the backers. It will do absolutely no good. If the project fails, the backers aren't getting their money back. If the project succeeds, the backers aren't getting their money back. What's at stake is the game itself. The project will get more support if people aren't slandering the developers during the creation process. Let them deliver their product and then everyone can judge for themselves whether what was promised was delivered.
If the project fails Chris Roberts has no one to blame but himself. He has fanned the fires of discord by his refusal to provide a bit of transparency and accountability. The only reason any CEO would refuse to provide a bit of disclosure and accountability to the extent of damaging a project like Roberts has done in this case is because something is amiss, gravely amiss. Not all of us are as easily led by the nose as you SC/Chris Roberts supporters. The media is beginning to pick up on this story and it will get a lot worse for Chris Roberts, and his legions of minions, before it is all done and over with.
It's getting harder to ignore the smoke and not think that there's fire in there somewhere.
Reasonable journalistic ethics? Prove it. They are so ass deep in gamergate it's not funny. There is no publication in the industry that meets journalistic integrity guidelines.
Prove what exactly? My sense that they have integrity? That's just my sense from reading them over the years. You obviously don't think much of them but I doubt you can furnish "proof" any more than I can.
How about Forbes? They've also posted about this today giving The Escapist's report a lot of weight.
Forbes bloggers have no more journalistic integrity than the Escapist. The blogs rarely if ever actually supply any journalistic insight than any other blog. They're pure op-ed opinion pieces. What did the linked Forbes blog bring to the table regarding facts? The journalists should be setting the higher standard here. It's not happening, unsurprisingly.
That's not what's happening here. I hate it. And not because I have an iron in the fire, but unsupported witch hunts have been the bane of our society since we've been recording history. There is a reason the ideal that innocent until proven guilty is highly valued.
I find it sad that we're trying to ferret out something horrible where nothing has yet been done. In an industry built on fantasy and science fiction literature we've soundly forgotten the principles those stories were written to teach.
Well I'll be the first to admit that I am definitely biased... as well as conflicted. I would love SC to be for real and turn out to be what fans expect and more -- I love a good space sim.
But I have also been very put off by what I consider an unprincipled and grotesque sale of digital assets for exorbitant amounts and my perception that the promotion, design and sale of those assets has become a dominant focus.
Whether the whales can afford it or not is not really relevant to me - the sale to those whales well before there is anything to play and the adoption of that model by at least one more developer who was associated with RSI (see Revival) is something I see as sleazy and taking advantage of the hopes and dreams of, quite frankly, addicted dupes... a new low for the F2P model.
As far as I'm concerned something horrible has already been done.
I also have no confidence that if funding ended today, they'd be able to give their backers $90,000,000 worth of space sim. Their continued focus on raising funds seems to indicates that they're operating based on projections of raising another good chunk of cash. Another $50 Mil or more before they're done would be my guess.
Then there're the changes to the TOS that would have resulted in refunds being payable to those wanting them this coming month now being payable sometime in 2018. I contrast that with what Mark Jacobs is doing with Camelot Unchained making refunds available at any time a backer changes his or her mind. One of those two contrasting refund policies seems honest and respectful to me, the other one doesn't.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Its too bad that the Escapist has fallen on such hard times, as to be reduced to using this type of click bait tactics, and allowing itself to be used for an obvious attack piece. They didn't even make a pretense of being balanced. No doubt next, we will learn (from undisclosed "informed sources"...) that Chris Roberts is Vox Day (or a space alien) and that this has all been part of his master plan for global conquest...<face palm>
Damn, this topic took off fast. I remember glancing at it earlier and thinking "This'll be good..." but 7 pages in a few hours?! xD
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
I totally have not interest in this game because i don't like sci fi it's just not my thing but i have been through all the threads about this and i will put what i want to say like this.
Say you was building a house and it was going to cost you £250,000 and you was given a date but then all of a sudden you have to pay 4x that, but the house is still not built a year later than it was suppose to be, would you just say oh it's fine nothing to worry about here ?
Its the Money Pit (see movie), either you give up and lose the money you put in, or you just keep spending more. Most people will keep spending for fear that the money that came before was wasted. Sadly this is also how a lot of scams work, and gambling.
I for one hope very much that Star Citizen succeeds. I'd love to see Derek Smart eat a huge shit sandwich over all this. He's a deplorable human being who's out to ruin something that a lot of people are working very hard to see realized.
because an "internet troll" has the power to ruin a 100 Million dollar game?
Wow...I guess EA is in alot of shit then.
EA isn't developing crowd-funded games. And to answer your question, I hope the answer is "no". But what he's doing is certainly not helping anyone.
Even if the "internet trolls" were able to stop people funding completely, the only way it can hurt SC is if CIG does not have the founds to finish the game. Which would then validate what the "internet trolls" have been saying.
Well. . not really. They have been giving refunds to people if they ask from what I can tell. If people start freaking, one of two things might happen. . they refund so much they have to scale back or cant complete the game. . or they have to stop refunding at which point people will lose the minds and assume it is all true.
I totally have not interest in this game because i don't like sci fi it's just not my thing but i have been through all the threads about this and i will put what i want to say like this.
Say you was building a house and it was going to cost you £250,000 and you was given a date but then all of a sudden you have to pay 4x that, but the house is still not built a year later than it was suppose to be, would you just say oh it's fine nothing to worry about here ?
Its the Money Pit (see movie), either you give up and lose the money you put in, or you just keep spending more. Most people will keep spending for fear that the money that came before was wasted. Sadly this is also how a lot of scams work, and gambling.
I had to google the movie i have seen it but ages ago my memory is a bit fuzzy i am in my 30's now. lol
I just don't understand why some people think everything is fine that is why i explained it that way, if people used their common sense then surely they must see something is wrong unfortunately i see some don't.
I don't know if these people lack common sense or are just blinded by what they are fed from this chris roberts who i don't know either unfortunately i just know him from what people have posted in this forum.
It's getting harder to ignore the smoke and not think that there's fire in there somewhere.
Reasonable journalistic ethics? Prove it. They are so ass deep in gamergate it's not funny. There is no publication in the industry that meets journalistic integrity guidelines.
Prove what exactly? My sense that they have integrity? That's just my sense from reading them over the years. You obviously don't think much of them but I doubt you can furnish "proof" any more than I can.
How about Forbes? They've also posted about this today giving The Escapist's report a lot of weight.
Forbes bloggers have no more journalistic integrity than the Escapist. The blogs rarely if ever actually supply any journalistic insight than any other blog. They're pure op-ed opinion pieces. What did the linked Forbes blog bring to the table regarding facts? The journalists should be setting the higher standard here. It's not happening, unsurprisingly.
That's not what's happening here. I hate it. And not because I have an iron in the fire, but unsupported witch hunts have been the bane of our society since we've been recording history. There is a reason the ideal that innocent until proven guilty is highly valued.
I find it sad that we're trying to ferret out something horrible where nothing has yet been done. In an industry built on fantasy and science fiction literature we've soundly forgotten the principles those stories were written to teach.
Well I'll be the first to admit that I am definitely biased... as well as conflicted. I would love SC to be for real and turn out to be what fans expect and more -- I love a good space sim.
But I have also been very put off by what I consider an unprincipled and grotesque sale of digital assets for exorbitant amounts and my perception that the promotion, design and sale of those assets has become a dominant focus.
Whether the whales can afford it or not is not really relevant to me - the sale to those whales well before there is anything to play and the adoption of that model by at least one more developer who was associated with RSI (see Revival) is something I see as sleazy and taking advantage of the hopes and dreams of, quite frankly, addicted dupes... a new low for the F2P model.
As far as I'm concerned something horrible has already been done.
I also have no confidence that if funding ended today, they'd be able to give their backers $90,000,000 worth of space sim. Their continued focus on raising funds seems to indicates that they're operating based on projections of raising another good chunk of cash. Another $50 Mil or more before they're done would be my guess.
Then there're the changes to the TOS that would have resulted in refunds being payable to those wanting them this coming month now being payable sometime in 2018. I contrast that with what Mark Jacobs is doing with Camelot Unchained making refunds available at any time a backer changes his or her mind. One of those two contrasting refund policies seems honest and respectful to me, the other one doesn't.
Those are all good points and I pretty much agree with them. But I am also of the mind that the end doesn't justify the means.
As far as this article goes: Unless someones willing to talk on record it's only tabloid fodder.
These kinds of articles being passed as reliable journalism also sets a very bad precedent.
I for one hope very much that Star Citizen succeeds. I'd love to see Derek Smart eat a huge shit sandwich over all this. He's a deplorable human being who's out to ruin something that a lot of people are working very hard to see realized.
because an "internet troll" has the power to ruin a 100 Million dollar game?
Wow...I guess EA is in alot of shit then.
EA isn't developing crowd-funded games. And to answer your question, I hope the answer is "no". But what he's doing is certainly not helping anyone.
Even if the "internet trolls" were able to stop people funding completely, the only way it can hurt SC is if CIG does not have the founds to finish the game. Which would then validate what the "internet trolls" have been saying.
exactly.
Post of the day!!!!
But why does what the trolls are saying need to be said at all? What good will it do? Smearing the project is only going to hurt the chances of its success, thereby jeopardizing the investment made by all the backers. It will do absolutely no good. If the project fails, the backers aren't getting their money back. If the project succeeds, the backers aren't getting their money back. What's at stake is the game itself. The project will get more support if people aren't slandering the developers during the creation process. Let them deliver their product and then everyone can judge for themselves whether what was promised was delivered.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong.
If the game is good no one will care. Gamers care about whether or not a game is fun not how much of the funds were spent on sending the CEO's wife on vacation. In fact all this media coverage has done is put CS on the map for people who might not normally be interested in a space game.
Unless of course financial malfeasance was going on and they can't finish the game without selling more thousand dollar ships. Then yeah, all this media coverage will really hurt.
I for one hope very much that Star Citizen succeeds. I'd love to see Derek Smart eat a huge shit sandwich over all this. He's a deplorable human being who's out to ruin something that a lot of people are working very hard to see realized.
because an "internet troll" has the power to ruin a 100 Million dollar game?
Wow...I guess EA is in alot of shit then.
EA isn't developing crowd-funded games. And to answer your question, I hope the answer is "no". But what he's doing is certainly not helping anyone.
Even if the "internet trolls" were able to stop people funding completely, the only way it can hurt SC is if CIG does not have the founds to finish the game. Which would then validate what the "internet trolls" have been saying.
Well. . not really. They have been giving refunds to people if they ask from what I can tell. If people start freaking, one of two things might happen. . they refund so much they have to scale back or cant complete the game. . or they have to stop refunding at which point people will lose the minds and assume it is all true.
Actually they have not been giving refunds to those that ask. They still have a policy of no Refunds, the fact that they have given out some, does not change this. Many people that have asked for a refund were refused.
Some thoughts: If the rumours turn out to be true and they only have $8m left, they will probably turn to a publisher at some point asking for support to finish the game. You better hope the publisher honours the ship packages that RSI sold, or don't change the game in such a way (to get it released) that the ship packages become worthless or worse still the ships get 'descoped' and are no longer available.
He has slandered my family members and business partners. He has
publically doxed me, sharing the address of my home in LA, pictures of
my wife and five year old daughter...
What the hell... can he do that?
It depends. The courts have long ruled that above a certain level of celebrity, the expectation of privacy changes. Particularly if one uses public media to promote one self, ones company, or agenda/ideology. Once you voluntarily enter the public sector in one area(self promotion), it lowers the expectation of privacy in others.(just ask Cosby, that was the legal argument that released his sealed deposition) Weather or not the courts would see this as crossing the threshold for either party, I am unsure(assuming he sues for doxing). I will say most CEO's addresses tend to be in public records. Pictures of the child may be a bit iffy but if that was an automatic no-go paparatzi would be illegal. Legal or not it definitely borders on the sleesy
Well I'll be the first to admit that I am definitely biased... as well as conflicted. I would love SC to be for real and turn out to be what fans expect and more -- I love a good space sim.
But I have also been very put off by what I consider an unprincipled and grotesque sale of digital assets for exorbitant amounts and my perception that the promotion, design and sale of those assets has become a dominant focus.
Whether the whales can afford it or not is not really relevant to me - the sale to those whales well before there is anything to play and the adoption of that model by at least one more developer who was associated with RSI (see Revival) is something I see as sleazy and taking advantage of the hopes and dreams of, quite frankly, addicted dupes... a new low for the F2P model.
As far as I'm concerned something horrible has already been done.
I also have no confidence that if funding ended today, they'd be able to give their backers $90,000,000 worth of space sim. Their continued focus on raising funds seems to indicates that they're operating based on projections of raising another good chunk of cash. Another $50 Mil or more before they're done would be my guess.
Then there're the changes to the TOS that would have resulted in refunds being payable to those wanting them this coming month now being payable sometime in 2018. I contrast that with what Mark Jacobs is doing with Camelot Unchained making refunds available at any time a backer changes his or her mind. One of those two contrasting refund policies seems honest and respectful to me, the other one doesn't.
Those are all good points and I pretty much agree with them. But I am also of the mind that the end doesn't justify the means.
As far as this article goes: Unless someones willing to talk on record it's only tabloid fodder.
These kinds of articles being passed as reliable journalism also sets a very bad precedent.
That is exactly my concern said simply. I think RSI being investigated is fine, but I think all sides and actors should be scrutinized. I would like to see real investigative journalism that looks at the practices by RSI, Derek Smart and his motives/agenda, the tabloids that have run these stories and their ties to the industry and how they profit from sensationalism even if its by predatory opportunism for advert revenue.
Maybe 60 minutes?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I for one hope very much that Star Citizen succeeds. I'd love to see Derek Smart eat a huge shit sandwich over all this. He's a deplorable human being who's out to ruin something that a lot of people are working very hard to see realized.
In other words ... I don't care if the allegations about SC/CiG/Chis Roberts are correct, I just hate Derek Smart with all my heart.
That pretty much is an accurate reflection of the attitude and opinion of the majority of you SC whiteknight fanatics.
I'm not a "SC whiteknight", whatever the hell that is. I'm not even a backer, nor do I intend to buy the game. But would I love to see Derek Smart eat shit? Oh yes, very much so. Because regardless of whether or not he's right, he's making things worse not better. There is nothing he has done that's been in the least bit helpful towards the success of this game or helpful for gaming in general. Nothing.
"Because regardless of whether or not he's right,he's making things worse not better. There is nothing he has done that's been in the least bit helpful towards the success of this game or helpful for gaming in general. Nothing."
Forgive me for telling you this but ... this little statement above tells me your hatred for Derek Smart is severely clouding your better judgment. You are failing to see the big picture, and thats putting it mildly.
Point is Derek has always been right from the start. Many of you were making fun of him and now the jokes on you. It's easy to see when something is being run really bad. The information has been out for some time and very few believed it.
Point is Derek has always been right from the start. Many of you were making fun of him and now the jokes on you. It's easy to see when something is being run really bad. The information has been out for some time and very few believed it.
He has slandered my family members and business partners. He has
publically doxed me, sharing the address of my home in LA, pictures of
my wife and five year old daughter...
What the hell... can he do that?
It depends. The courts have long ruled that above a certain level of celebrity, the expectation of privacy changes. Particularly if one uses public media to promote one self, ones company, or agenda/ideology. Once you voluntarily enter the public sector in one area(self promotion), it lowers the expectation of privacy in others.(just ask Cosby, that was the legal argument that released his sealed deposition) Weather or not the courts would see this as crossing the threshold for either party, I am unsure(assuming he sues for doxing). I will say most CEO's addresses tend to be in public records. Pictures of the child may be a bit iffy but if that was an automatic no-go paparatzi would be illegal. Legal or not it definitely borders on the sleesy
i just looked up the definition of dox. did this really happen?
He has slandered my family members and business partners. He has
publically doxed me, sharing the address of my home in LA, pictures of
my wife and five year old daughter...
What the hell... can he do that?
It depends. The courts have long ruled that above a certain level of celebrity, the expectation of privacy changes. Particularly if one uses public media to promote one self, ones company, or agenda/ideology. Once you voluntarily enter the public sector in one area(self promotion), it lowers the expectation of privacy in others.(just ask Cosby, that was the legal argument that released his sealed deposition) Weather or not the courts would see this as crossing the threshold for either party, I am unsure(assuming he sues for doxing). I will say most CEO's addresses tend to be in public records. Pictures of the child may be a bit iffy but if that was an automatic no-go paparatzi would be illegal. Legal or not it definitely borders on the sleesy
i just looked up the definition of dox. did this really happen?
He has slandered my family members and business partners. He has
publically doxed me, sharing the address of my home in LA, pictures of
my wife and five year old daughter...
What the hell... can he do that?
It depends. The courts have long ruled that above a certain level of celebrity, the expectation of privacy changes. Particularly if one uses public media to promote one self, ones company, or agenda/ideology. Once you voluntarily enter the public sector in one area(self promotion), it lowers the expectation of privacy in others.(just ask Cosby, that was the legal argument that released his sealed deposition) Weather or not the courts would see this as crossing the threshold for either party, I am unsure(assuming he sues for doxing). I will say most CEO's addresses tend to be in public records. Pictures of the child may be a bit iffy but if that was an automatic no-go paparatzi would be illegal. Legal or not it definitely borders on the sleesy
i just looked up the definition of dox. did this really happen?
Odd, I've never known the Urban Dictionary to use false equivalence and hyperbole before.
For targeting private citizens it's all kind of of illegal, for public personas much less so. Just look at Trump and his publication of Grahms cell phone #. At hat level it has to basically cross the limit into info allowing ID theft to cross barriers.
He has slandered my family members and business partners. He has
publically doxed me, sharing the address of my home in LA, pictures of
my wife and five year old daughter...
What the hell... can he do that?
It depends. The courts have long ruled that above a certain level of celebrity, the expectation of privacy changes. Particularly if one uses public media to promote one self, ones company, or agenda/ideology. Once you voluntarily enter the public sector in one area(self promotion), it lowers the expectation of privacy in others.(just ask Cosby, that was the legal argument that released his sealed deposition) Weather or not the courts would see this as crossing the threshold for either party, I am unsure(assuming he sues for doxing). I will say most CEO's addresses tend to be in public records. Pictures of the child may be a bit iffy but if that was an automatic no-go paparatzi would be illegal. Legal or not it definitely borders on the sleesy
i just looked up the definition of dox. did this really happen?
Odd, I've never known the Urban Dictionary to use false equivalence and hyperbole before.
For targeting private citizens it's all kind of of illegal, for public personas much less so. Just look at Trump and his publication of Grahms cell phone #
Yes, it is illegal; [mod edit] My point really was that I find the Urban Dictionary to be juvenile horse-shit, and dislike seeing it referenced.
He has slandered my family members and business partners. He has
publically doxed me, sharing the address of my home in LA, pictures of
my wife and five year old daughter...
What the hell... can he do that?
It depends. The courts have long ruled that above a certain level of celebrity, the expectation of privacy changes. Particularly if one uses public media to promote one self, ones company, or agenda/ideology. Once you voluntarily enter the public sector in one area(self promotion), it lowers the expectation of privacy in others.(just ask Cosby, that was the legal argument that released his sealed deposition) Weather or not the courts would see this as crossing the threshold for either party, I am unsure(assuming he sues for doxing). I will say most CEO's addresses tend to be in public records. Pictures of the child may be a bit iffy but if that was an automatic no-go paparatzi would be illegal. Legal or not it definitely borders on the sleesy
i just looked up the definition of dox. did this really happen?
Odd, I've never known the Urban Dictionary to use false equivalence and hyperbole before.
For targeting private citizens it's all kind of of illegal, for public personas much less so. Just look at Trump and his publication of Grahms cell phone #
Yes, it is illegal; [mod edit] My point really was that I find the Urban Dictionary to be juvenile horse-shit, and dislike seeing it referenced.
Lol agreed sY I didn't give the UD portion the time of day
Comments
Say you was building a house and it was going to cost you £250,000 and you was given a date but then all of a sudden you have to pay 4x that, but the house is still not built a year later than it was suppose to be, would you just say oh it's fine nothing to worry about here ?
Actually, sycophants ruin most things. If you're working in an echo-chamber where everyone is constantly praising you and defending your work, it's going to lead to problems. The person patting your back is never your friend.
If the project fails Chris Roberts has no one to blame but himself. He has fanned the fires of discord by his refusal to provide a bit of transparency and accountability. The only reason any CEO would refuse to provide a bit of disclosure and accountability to the extent of damaging a project like Roberts has done in this case is because something is amiss, gravely amiss. Not all of us are as easily led by the nose as you SC/Chris Roberts supporters. The media is beginning to pick up on this story and it will get a lot worse for Chris Roberts, and his legions of minions, before it is all done and over with.
But I have also been very put off by what I consider an unprincipled and grotesque sale of digital assets for exorbitant amounts and my perception that the promotion, design and sale of those assets has become a dominant focus.
Whether the whales can afford it or not is not really relevant to me - the sale to those whales well before there is anything to play and the adoption of that model by at least one more developer who was associated with RSI (see Revival) is something I see as sleazy and taking advantage of the hopes and dreams of, quite frankly, addicted dupes... a new low for the F2P model.
As far as I'm concerned something horrible has already been done.
I also have no confidence that if funding ended today, they'd be able to give their backers $90,000,000 worth of space sim. Their continued focus on raising funds seems to indicates that they're operating based on projections of raising another good chunk of cash. Another $50 Mil or more before they're done would be my guess.
Then there're the changes to the TOS that would have resulted in refunds being payable to those wanting them this coming month now being payable sometime in 2018. I contrast that with what Mark Jacobs is doing with Camelot Unchained making refunds available at any time a backer changes his or her mind. One of those two contrasting refund policies seems honest and respectful to me, the other one doesn't.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Destined to rust in pieces at the bottom of the sea in a great morality tale.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
I had to google the movie i have seen it but ages ago my memory is a bit fuzzy i am in my 30's now. lol
I just don't understand why some people think everything is fine that is why i explained it that way, if people used their common sense then surely they must see something is wrong unfortunately i see some don't.
I don't know if these people lack common sense or are just blinded by what they are fed from this chris roberts who i don't know either unfortunately i just know him from what people have posted in this forum.
As far as this article goes: Unless someones willing to talk on record it's only tabloid fodder.
These kinds of articles being passed as reliable journalism also sets a very bad precedent.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If the game is good no one will care. Gamers care about whether or not a game is fun not how much of the funds were spent on sending the CEO's wife on vacation. In fact all this media coverage has done is put CS on the map for people who might not normally be interested in a space game.
Unless of course financial malfeasance was going on and they can't finish the game without selling more thousand dollar ships. Then yeah, all this media coverage will really hurt.
It depends. The courts have long ruled that above a certain level of celebrity, the expectation of privacy changes. Particularly if one uses public media to promote one self, ones company, or agenda/ideology. Once you voluntarily enter the public sector in one area(self promotion), it lowers the expectation of privacy in others.(just ask Cosby, that was the legal argument that released his sealed deposition) Weather or not the courts would see this as crossing the threshold for either party, I am unsure(assuming he sues for doxing). I will say most CEO's addresses tend to be in public records. Pictures of the child may be a bit iffy but if that was an automatic no-go paparatzi would be illegal. Legal or not it definitely borders on the sleesy
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"Because regardless of whether or not he's right, he's making things worse not better. There is nothing he has done that's been in the least bit helpful towards the success of this game or helpful for gaming in general. Nothing."
Forgive me for telling you this but ... this little statement above tells me your hatred for Derek Smart is severely clouding your better judgment. You are failing to see the big picture, and thats putting it mildly.
http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/436844/does-star-citizen-have-a-lack-of-capable-software-engineers/p1
Read my original post and my next post.
Derek Smart came out lying in this whole thing.
i just looked up the definition of dox. did this really happen?
Dox
For targeting private citizens it's all kind of of illegal, for public personas much less so. Just look at Trump and his publication of Grahms cell phone #. At hat level it has to basically cross the limit into info allowing ID theft to cross barriers.
Lol agreed sY I didn't give the UD portion the time of day