If the original statement was that the game would cost $6 million to make and "like you guys are saying" the SC and SQ42 were all along supposed to be separate games, then why does it now over $100 million later and they're "running out of cash"?
Please explain how a $6 million game turns into a $100+ million game if they were supposed to have been two separate games. Even so, $100 million???
If the original statement was that the game would cost $6 million to make and "like you guys are saying" the SC and SQ42 were all along supposed to be separate games, then why does it now over $100 million later and they're "running out of cash"?
Please explain how a $6 million game turns into a $100+ million game if they were supposed to have been two separate games. Even so, $100 million???
two entirely different subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
SQ42 was always billed as a seperate game. How it gets funded or not funded is a completely diffferent conversation
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If the original statement was that the game would cost $6 million to make and "like you guys are saying" the SC and SQ42 were all along supposed to be separate games, then why does it now over $100 million later and they're "running out of cash"?
Please explain how a $6 million game turns into a $100+ million game if they were supposed to have been two separate games. Even so, $100 million???
You can't go back to the original 6 million dollar vision for any comparison to the full stretch goal version of the game. It is disingenuous at best and a fools folly otherwise.
The belief of yours and others that they are in a cash short fall is supposition.
If the original statement was that the game would cost $6 million to make and "like you guys are saying" the SC and SQ42 were all along supposed to be separate games, then why does it now over $100 million later and they're "running out of cash"?
Please explain how a $6 million game turns into a $100+ million game if they were supposed to have been two separate games. Even so, $100 million???
two entirely different subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
SQ42 was always billed as a seperate game. How it gets funded or not funded is a completely diffferent conversation
It's by the same company. The backing was people backing BOTH games or atleast both "modes" (which was what it was called originally until they changed it).
The money that they've accumulated..that $100 million is going to the entire project whether you want to label it as SC including SQ42 or as separate.
I wanna know (if you planned on having them separate from the start) then how do you need $100 million instead of $6 million?
Damnit, people. The 100 million hasn't gone anywhere. The project runs off interest and current monthly income. Not saying it again. It's. in. their. pockets. and. there's. no. product.
It's by the same company. The backing was people backing BOTH games or atleast both "modes" (which was what it was called originally until they changed it).
The money that they've accumulated..that $100 million is going to the entire project whether you want to label it as SC including SQ42 or as separate.
I wanna know (if you planned on having them separate from the start) then how do you need $100 million instead of $6 million?
Yes "IT WAS" both games. Going forward it won't be. Anyone who owns it now owns both games. Going forward you will need to buy each game. Simple.
Damnit, people. The 100 million hasn't gone anywhere. The project runs off interest and current monthly income. Not saying it again. It's. in. their. pockets. and. there's. no. product.
Right, so why do TWO games then and get more money from people? Even if people say "hey it's good business, they're making more money.", it's a bad move consumer wise. Consumers don't like greedy and money-hungry companies.
Damnit, people. The 100 million hasn't gone anywhere. The project runs off interest and current monthly income. Not saying it again. It's. in. their. pockets. and. there's. no. product.
Right, so why do TWO games then and get more money from people? Even if people say "hey it's good business, they're making more money.", it's a bad move consumer wise. Consumers don't like greedy and money-hungry companies.
They've always been making Both SQ42 and the PU. Regardless of what people call them they have always been making those two things. All funding they have received has been going to both games.
It is no more a bad move than when a sale ends. You wanted it for less you buy it when it is less. You want to play it safe? Don't buy it. If you decide to buy it later then yes you may pay more. The old prices no longer apply.
Damnit, people. The 100 million hasn't gone anywhere. The project runs off interest and current monthly income. Not saying it again. It's. in. their. pockets. and. there's. no. product.
Right, so why do TWO games then and get more money from people? Even if people say "hey it's good business, they're making more money.", it's a bad move consumer wise. Consumers don't like greedy and money-hungry companies.
Because they're greedy, I guess. Is there any way to see how much Roberts and Sandi pay themselves monthly for their positions in payroll? Because part of this development cost, which is off the interest of the 10s of millions in their names, is going back into their pockets as wages. Tax credits for investing in overseas property is going back in their pockets.
See, this is... something. You guys don't even get it.
Damnit, people. The 100 million hasn't gone anywhere. The project runs off interest and current monthly income. Not saying it again. It's. in. their. pockets. and. there's. no. product.
lol @Adjuvant1 calm down mate your arguing with us and we are agreeing with you
I dont agree that this game is a good example of "transparent development". If it was, we would have much more info on what happened with the FPS module that illfonic made and they used as a demo for most of 2015? In all honestly, I dont see much of a difference between this games transparency and most other games.
If people can't handle this level of transparency without nit-picking it apart what would they do with more? What would more info on the FPS module and Illfonic tell you that is important to know?
I was not addressing the need for more transparency, just that CIG is not doing it any better than others I have seen. The start of this was because someone implied this was a new level of transparency we have not seen before and I simply did not agree and gave the FPS module as an example.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
While I agree I would like a detailed answer in regards to this specific set of events, I am certain they would be misinterpreted and twisted by parties of all sides until their meanings, unless painfully clearly defined, would be rendered pointless.
I 100% agree with you on that.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
I dont agree that this game is a good example of "transparent development". If it was, we would have much more info on what happened with the FPS module that illfonic made and they used as a demo for most of 2015? In all honestly, I dont see much of a difference between this games transparency and most other games.
If people can't handle this level of transparency without nit-picking it apart what would they do with more? What would more info on the FPS module and Illfonic tell you that is important to know?
I was not addressing the need for more transparency, just that CIG is not doing it any better than others I have seen. The start of this was because someone implied this was a new level of transparency we have not seen before and I simply did not agree and gave the FPS module as an example.
Simply put, you are saying they are providing a level of transparency superior to the norm but not unprecedented?
Evident from your replies. No need to attempt to explain further. I think you think we don't understand what you are saying, while we believe you aren't following us. It's a lose, lose.
for the love of god would someone just change the title!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Star Citizen and Squadron 42 split - now you suddenly
is total card carrying lie
I agree the title is misleading as they have been hinting at it in 2015 a few times but to say it was "always" intended as separate boxed products is just as misleading. The original kickstarter asked for 500k to build the game and it included SQ42. If they were building two games, they would have needed two kickstarters.
Now before you go full blown wack-job on me... I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the split and it does make business sense to offer them separately. I'm saying it was NOT part of the business plan back in 2012. Did that change later, yes.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
for the love of god would someone just change the title!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Star Citizen and Squadron 42 split - now you suddenly
is total card carrying lie
I agree the title is misleading as they have been hinting at it in 2015 a few times but to say it was "always" intended as separate boxed products is just as misleading. The original kickstarter asked for 500k to build the game and it included SQ42. If they were building two games, they would have needed two kickstarters.
Now before you go full blown wack-job on me... I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the split and it does make business sense to offer them separately. I'm saying it was NOT part of the business plan back in 2012. Did that change later, yes.
that is hairsplitting in a desperate effort to save it.
Its just F cked up pure and simple it makes it worse to try to obfuscate it into accuracy that never ends well
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I agree the title is misleading as they have been hinting at it in 2015 a few times but to say it was "always" intended as separate boxed products is just as misleading. The original kickstarter asked for 500k to build the game and it included SQ42. If they were building two games, they would have needed two kickstarters.
Now before you go full blown wack-job on me... I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the split and it does make business sense to offer them separately. I'm saying it was NOT part of the business plan back in 2012. Did that change later, yes.
Nope, they have always stated that SQ42 was to be the standalone, single player version. While the PU was online. They even made separate definitions in the backer levels, saying that you also get SQ42. Why would they make that distinction if it was all the same game?
If the original statement was that the game would cost $6 million to make and "like you guys are saying" the SC and SQ42 were all along supposed to be separate games, then why does it now over $100 million later and they're "running out of cash"?
Please explain how a $6 million game turns into a $100+ million game if they were supposed to have been two separate games. Even so, $100 million???
two entirely different subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
SQ42 was always billed as a seperate game. How it gets funded or not funded is a completely diffferent conversation
It's by the same company. The backing was people backing BOTH games or atleast both "modes" (which was what it was called originally until they changed it).
The money that they've accumulated..that $100 million is going to the entire project whether you want to label it as SC including SQ42 or as separate.
I wanna know (if you planned on having them separate from the start) then how do you need $100 million instead of $6 million?
They never said they needed $100 million. That is what we the backers funded them. I guess you don't understand how crowdfunding works or you wouldn't be asking about it.
Damnit, people. The 100 million hasn't gone anywhere. The project runs off interest and current monthly income. Not saying it again. It's. in. their. pockets. and. there's. no. product.
Right, so why do TWO games then and get more money from people? Even if people say "hey it's good business, they're making more money.", it's a bad move consumer wise. Consumers don't like greedy and money-hungry companies.
Well apparently you have never heard of Electronic Arts as it would prove your comment about people and greedy companies wrong.
They never said they needed $100 million. That is what we the backers funded them. I guess you don't understand how crowdfunding works or you wouldn't be asking about it.
Yet somehow they need more money. I think you are the one who needs a little understanding here.
They never said they needed $100 million. That is what we the backers funded them. I guess you don't understand how crowdfunding works or you wouldn't be asking about it.
Yet somehow they need more money. I think you are the one who needs a little understanding here.
There is no eveidence of need. Companies by nature look to make money. This isn't abnormal.
Comments
If the original statement was that the game would cost $6 million to make and "like you guys are saying" the SC and SQ42 were all along supposed to be separate games, then why does it now over $100 million later and they're "running out of cash"?
Please explain how a $6 million game turns into a $100+ million game if they were supposed to have been two separate games. Even so, $100 million???
Unfortunately it is open to interpretation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/case-studies/cloud-imperium-games-invests-15-million-in-its-uk-studio
SQ42 was always billed as a seperate game. How it gets funded or not funded is a completely diffferent conversation
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You can't go back to the original 6 million dollar vision for any comparison to the full stretch goal version of the game. It is disingenuous at best and a fools folly otherwise.
The belief of yours and others that they are in a cash short fall is supposition.
Simply posted link to clarify his point of discussion in the chance you wished to view it.
It's by the same company. The backing was people backing BOTH games or atleast both "modes" (which was what it was called originally until they changed it).
The money that they've accumulated..that $100 million is going to the entire project whether you want to label it as SC including SQ42 or as separate.
I wanna know (if you planned on having them separate from the start) then how do you need $100 million instead of $6 million?
Going forward it won't be.
Anyone who owns it now owns both games.
Going forward you will need to buy each game.
Simple.
Right, so why do TWO games then and get more money from people? Even if people say "hey it's good business, they're making more money.", it's a bad move consumer wise. Consumers don't like greedy and money-hungry companies.
Regardless of what people call them they have always been making those two things.
All funding they have received has been going to both games.
It is no more a bad move than when a sale ends.
You wanted it for less you buy it when it is less.
You want to play it safe?
Don't buy it.
If you decide to buy it later then yes you may pay more. The old prices no longer apply.
See, this is... something. You guys don't even get it.
I believe I agree with you then.
No need to attempt to explain further.
I think you think we don't understand what you are saying, while we believe you aren't following us.
It's a lose, lose.
Now before you go full blown wack-job on me... I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the split and it does make business sense to offer them separately. I'm saying it was NOT part of the business plan back in 2012. Did that change later, yes.
Its just F cked up pure and simple it makes it worse to try to obfuscate it into accuracy that never ends well
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Companies by nature look to make money.
This isn't abnormal.