Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Star Citizen, Holiday Sale (aka Sale 2.0)
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Which in the case of CR is so very easy to do because he has along and checkered history. The single thing people hang their hat on is Wing Commander which was what 20 years ago if not more? THAT is going to buy him all this good will now? And his say so in Wing Commander is dubious at best. if you read third party stuff he didnt have much to do with it if you read his IMDB page he invented the computer just to make sure Wing Commander could be made.
Thats why I said critics have way more material because it exists and its irrefutable. The stuff with SC is simply taking the KNOWN from the past and assuming it will happen in the future. Considering the critics now have 3 years and 105 million dollars to look at along with a dozen or more sales of ships that dont exist for a game that doesnt exist along with resales of 'limited quality' (which is a joke for a cut and paste item that still doesnt exist) I think it is fair to say SC has more to prove than the critics do.
People keep saying give it time, some people say up to two more years, well time is money and if he hasnt been able to do anything in 3 years with 105 million why do people think he will be able to do it in 5 years and (extrapolating out) 175 million? Especially now when they admit costs are much higher than they were before.
I am waiting for them to cite 'inflation' as another reason why they need more money. Which if it is another 2 or 3 years might actually be relevant.
Based on ALL KNOWN stuff the critics are more correct than the believers. Its that simple. believers are hanging themselves on a HUGE hope that it is just business as usual and that eventually a miracle will happen. While critics have the past 3 years.
Also as far as tech demos. I havent seen shit done in a tech demo. I have seen a couple videos that show what theyre claiming they can do but that surely isnt proving it can be done in a 3D persistent world. Videos that by the way have been blown up by people who state exactly how they were made and why they look the way they do. I dont post links but I am sure someone has several of them handy.
Also the clincher for me is the argument people are using (without maybe knowing theyre using it( that basically boils down to he is either lying now or was lying 3 years ago, or 2 years ago or last year. Now lying might be a strong word but when your HABITUALLY incorrect in making claims and refuses to adjust expectations (in this case for monetary game) a LOGICAL person would say the person is lying and couldnt possibly be that incompetent. But if people want to use incompetent so be it. So he is either lying or incompetent, and even some of the fans have conceded he isnt the sharpest tool in the shed. yet people are still entrusting him with this project.
I mean if that live stream video didnt show him for the buffoon he is then nothing will. Seriously like I said when it first came out it looked like Smart was inside wearing a hidden camera exposing the guy, not a CIG sponsored livestream. Thing is (according to the google doc) they have 'raised' 3 mil since that livestream happened. That doesnt make logical sense either, which I guess is par for the course with this fiasco.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I hope it is.
I doubt it will.
Give us a name....because it sure as sh aint me even though I have been basically attacked for defending some parts of the SC project
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
A lot of people blindly defend this game, a lot of people also blindly attack it. Generally speaking both of those groups can be ignored. The guys that make sense (on both sides) are a little more realistic, unfortunately, like I have said the believers only real go to card is the amount of money they have raised (if you believe the figure), and continue to raise (again if you believe the figures) and the fact theyre FINALLY working on the tech demo(alpha). Thats about it. I know some people think CiG offering so many ships (regardless of price) is a good thing, and I have discussed the mentality behind that. Oh ans the fact the guy was on a team that made a game 20 years ago that some of them liked.
Critics have a lot, which I said goes well beyond this game (knowns and unknowns) and covers past exploits and 'failures' as well as a pattern of how CR handles things. Its almost like building a RICO case there is so much 'evidence' you almost have to leave some out because it confuses people. Which is now what the believers are trying to do. They take relevant issues and try to make them seem irrelevant which out of context they might be, but in the grand scheme they all show a pattern.
Allow me to quote myself:
And yes I know youre quoting yourself there
Saying he won't actually release a game is silly. The guys that think it's all a scam and he's not making a game are being ridiculous.
Scam isn't the right word, taking advantage seems pretty obvious to me though. He always delivers a product, he just happens to go about it in a way that isn't entirely beneficial to the end product itself.
I don't think he started out this way. I'm pretty sure he never expected people to throw this kind of money at him, but once he realized it he knew he could make more.
There's no one to rein him in, and the game is going to suffer for it.
If this is greed, I don't think that it's good; especially when it appears before the game even releases. I can't think of any games that I enjoy playing that are designed around getting me to throw money at it. Not really liking what I'm seeing coming out of CIG, the impression it's giving me isn't really the one a company wants to give.
I am their target market, and these are the words that come to mind when I think about SC:
Greed
Pay to win
Sleezy
Overpromised
Overhyped
Untrustworthy
EA
It's the length of development combined with the sales.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
My bottom line for what I equate to "getting my moneys worth" has already be set. Best thing is, I have prior experience to back up my decisions and make this investment.
@Uhwop ; Freelancer had MIcrosoft as their publisher, and you blame CR for the rushed launch? I mean, as an example; I don't blame Dice for the rushed launch of Battlefield 4, I blame EA for that. Heck, most gamers who bought Battlefield 4 blame EA for that. The blame was so bad, even from investors, that EA got rightfully sued over it.
Sure am glad I never pre-ordered battlefield 4. There wasn't enough information on the game to tell what kind of state it was in, at every single stage of development. This is not the case with SC. Sure there is some development they are not revealing yet, such as a good portion of the S42 content; But they are frequently keeping people updated on what they are working on. And yet, SC is FAR more controversial in the community than Battlefield 4 was. This tells me where the source of controversy it. It's not about whether the game will be good or not, it's simply out of spite for the fact that they either just don't like the payment model, or hate Chris's guts.
I think an argument could definitely be made that, at least beginning in 2000, keeping Roberts on likely wasn't in the best interest of the project. Do I know that? Nah, but given the timeline of development and the fact that, without Microsoft taking over (and coincidentally, Roberts taking a backseat), it would never have seen the light of day... I think it'd be foolish to act as if Freelancer was "Robert's" game in the end anyways. It's simply factual that he wasn't in charge of the project through completion, that half the development time was after he left Digital Anvil, and that the project suffered delays up until he left DA. After acquiring the project, Microsoft is quoted as saying the development was moving along on (the new) schedule. Still, on schedule for Microsoft meant another 2 and a half years roughly and a full 3 years after CR's first projected completion date for Freelancer (when he was still at DA). So I don't think anyone can say Microsoft "rushed" Freelancer's release, really.
We have all heard numerous stories of games with a lot of potential crashing and burning, much to the dismay of the development team, because the Publisher wanted to raise their quarterly reports, etc, etc. Maybe Microsoft's handling of Freelancer was right at that time, with how the status quo was at that time. But right now CR is developing SC under a completely different status quo. And like some on here have previous mentioned; It's no mystery whether KS startups can develop good games. There are already some fine examples of games that started on KS. Certainly not as ambitious ones as SC, however.
Chris Roberts was under contract with Microsoft as a creative consultant on Freelancer until its release.
If you have a credible source that says otherwise, I'd be happy to read it.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
Roberts said himself without Microsoft's funding the game would not have been completed. The very fact that he gave up his role as a head of Digital Anvil to Microsoft speaks to the fact that, as others have said, if no one is there to reign him in, his mind runs away with things. That they kept him on as a "creative consultant" could be viewed as nothing more than Microsoft's lip service to it being his project in the beginning or to keep his name on the project due to Wing Commander's success. Do I believe that? Partially, though I think he still voiced his opinions and communicated his original vision when Microsoft asked for it. I believe they more than likely did to some degree. Either way, it's clear his role diminished once Microsoft bought DA and that, coincidentally, the delays (according to Microsoft) stopped once he moved from that position. It's also clear that he was no longer a part of Digital Anvil after the buy, consultations or not.
So what part of my post was wrong, exactly?
@Shoko_Lied
I don't disagree with anything you have said, as it's your perspective on things. I can dig that. I was just explaining why me (and others) are skeptical about the project's chances with Roberts at the helm and (presumably) no Microsoft to buy it up and finish it this time around.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Microsoft only cut features from the original design, they didn't add anything, so the design (or what was left of it) was 100% CR's creation.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I could counter that if the final product was still 100% CR's design, then his diminished role is actually irrelevant...
Shall we perhaps next move the debate to a discussion of "what the definition of 'is' is ?"