"....At the moment, backers will be able to get Squadron 42 and Star Citizen together for a limited time before February 14th for $45.00...."
The "limited time" lasted over 3 years ;-)
I love how you condemn any source that is not CIG when something bad is printed but when trying to defend CIG then any old blog will do. If I didnt know any better, I would think you are paid to promote this game.
At your leisure, please explain why you conveniently left out the OTHER source i quoted, the one directly from the official Star Citizen homepage ? The one i quoted in addition to the link mentioned above.
To refresh your memory :
"--> "This package allows you to pledge for Squadron 42, bundled with Star Citizen ..."
You
will have an entry called "Star Citizen Digital Download" and "Squadron
42 Digital Download" in the description of every pledge package."
Every current package shows that both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 is included. Go ahead. Check it on the homepage. If you have pledged yourself, check it in your "My account" section.
I feel this information has been well known for a while now, but by those who are actually interested in the game or whats going on or have been researching the game looking at the good and bad. Streamers have been saying it for a few months now about the split and is stated on the buy page. So if people, like quite a few here who never had an interest in the game or was never gonna be part of the community, you would be shocked.
So imho were seeing another case where if you don't follow whats happening you're left out the loop and information like this comes as a shock.
"....At the moment, backers will be able to get Squadron 42 and Star Citizen together for a limited time before February 14th for $45.00...."
The "limited time" lasted over 3 years ;-)
I love how you condemn any source that is not CIG when something bad is printed but when trying to defend CIG then any old blog will do. If I didnt know any better, I would think you are paid to promote this game.
At your leisure, please explain why you conveniently left out the OTHER source i quoted, the one directly from the official Star Citizen homepage ? The one i quoted in addition to the link mentioned above.
To refresh your memory :
"--> "This package allows you to pledge for Squadron 42, bundled with Star Citizen ..."
You
will have an entry called "Star Citizen Digital Download" and "Squadron
42 Digital Download" in the description of every pledge package."
Every current package shows that both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 is included. Go ahead. Check it on the homepage. If you have pledged yourself, check it in your "My account" section.
There was also a quote from CR in 2013 where he specificially says that stretch goals would not delay the release of the game but I cant seem to find it right now. I dont have all his quotes in a database like Erillion does.
The game was originally slated for a 2014 release and up until the end of 2013 that is what we were continually lead to believe. Only in 2014 did Chris announce that the "fans" wanted more features and the game has grown from its initial scope. Until that point, the official party line was that stretch goals would not delay the game.
Does anyone else find it odd that things seem to change only after their usefulness in getting backer donations has worn off? Here are three examples:
1. Keep backing those stretch goals because they will not delay the game.
2. Continued promoting Star Marine in all of 2015 to get those donations from CoD fans then indefinitely postponing it.
3. Initially push the game on kickstarter as "Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play)" but then change the single player portion as a separate game you have to pay for if you dont back it by this February
Disclaimer: In no way do I think the game is a scam or that CR ever intended to "steal" backer money. I do believe that there has been some mismanagement with CIG and I do not think we have been told the truth about what is going on or how much money they have left.
"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
Have constantly seen people say they stay away from multiplayer and others say they never play single campaign. I played the alpha and there aint no netcode in the world that can backup their claims of a respectable multiplayer experience for me, but this is a dumb complaint.
Not only has squadron 42 always been talked about as the single player component but it was clear squadron 42 would launch before SC. If you are going to hate the game hate it for the right reasons.
How anyone can think this is anything but an attempt to generate more revenue to keep the ship afloat is beyond me.
I guess they aren't selling enough ships, any more.....
I think it's about moving their target more than anything. They know they can't keep selling new ships to pay for production of ones they've sold previously so they want to focus on gaining their income from elsewhere.
Ok, quick question: Did CIG not say you had to earn Citizenship in SQ42 to play in the open world? How does that work when they split it into two seperate products?
How anyone can think this is anything but an attempt to generate more revenue to keep the ship afloat is beyond me.
I guess they aren't selling enough ships, any more.....
I think it's about moving their target more than anything. They know they can't keep selling new ships to pay for production of ones they've sold previously so they want to focus on gaining their income from elsewhere.
Aye. Get the single player game out and sell it as a single product. It is undoubtedly the easier part to complete and will generate additional revenue via additional customers.
Have constantly seen people say they stay away from multiplayer and others say they never play single campaign. I played the alpha and there aint no netcode in the world that can backup their claims of a respectable multiplayer experience for me, but this is a dumb complaint.
Not only has squadron 42 always been talked about as the single player component but it was clear squadron 42 would launch before SC. If you are going to hate the game hate it for the right reasons.
You have missed what is being complained. It was not clear that they would eventually be split into 2 games you have to pay for separately. Don't say that was always the plan because they originally claimed you would need to finish SQ42 before being able to get onto the PTU which means they were either always planned to be sold together as one package, or they were going to force you to own both to get onto the PTU which in itself would have been a sleazy tactic.
How anyone can think this is anything but an attempt to generate more revenue to keep the ship afloat is beyond me.
I guess they aren't selling enough ships, any more.....
I think it's about moving their target more than anything. They know they can't keep selling new ships to pay for production of ones they've sold previously so they want to focus on gaining their income from elsewhere.
Think everyone can agree it's going to be another source of income, but I think a problem is who is left to buy the split version? Imho most of the fans have already bought the 2 for 1. For it to sell, the game needs to be able to stand on it's own to feet.
I think this will be a turning point, If S42 is unable to stand on it's own, doubts for SC will set in imho
Ok, quick question: Did CIG not say you had to earn Citizenship in SQ42 to play in the open world? How does that work when they split it into two seperate products?
No, it is merely the historical precursor to the Star Citizen Persistent Universe timeline. It is not required to play or purchase before playing Star Citizen.
I can't be for sure but you could earn legacy honours/badges/titles through the Squadron 42 game, which wouldn't be out of the norm.
Ok, quick question: Did CIG not say you had to earn Citizenship in SQ42 to play in the open world? How does that work when they split it into two seperate products?
CIG said you will have advantages in the open world if you have earned "Citizenship" by doing your tour of duty with the military (meaning .... having played Squadron 42). You can jump right into the multiplayer, but you will not have "Citizenship" because you were not in the military. Reminded me very much of Starship Troopers.
One can only speculate, but my guess would be (amongst other things) that as a "Citizen" you will have better chances to get military surplus equipment from the military, which is significantly better than the equipment you get start with. If there are ranks in official organizations (like in Elite: Dangerous) I would imagine that the higher ranks can only be obtained by those with "Citizenship". Maybe you have to pay less for services and fees as a "Citizen".
How anyone can think this is anything but an attempt to generate more revenue to keep the ship afloat is beyond me.
I guess they aren't selling enough ships, any more.....
I think it's about moving their target more than anything. They know they can't keep selling new ships to pay for production of ones they've sold previously so they want to focus on gaining their income from elsewhere.
Think everyone can agree it's going to be another source of income, but I think a problem is who is left to buy the split version? Imho most of the fans have already bought the 2 for 1. For it to sell, the game needs to be able to stand on it's own to feet.
I think this will be a turning point, If S42 is unable to stand on it's own, doubts for SC will set in more imho
Though only speculation, I believe there is probably a sizable number of persons who are completely uninterested and put off by the PU enough to forgo purchase, but would love to purchase an enjoyable story driven single player space sim. I also believe the single player game, when released, will reach a larger portion of the public's attention generating sales from persons previously unaware of the game.
Too much money to be made to cancel the project. Splitting the games up + the social media breaking official launch date will likely yield tremendous sales. If they were really into just making money, they wouldn't just run away and not make the game.
The best money making method would be to buy up assets that can be liquidated, make a decent game, piece meal sell the game and deny early reviews to boost sales and the natural attention a launch announcement would give.
Those who say the game will not be made because they think there's no reason and they can just run away with the money do not know how to make large amounts of money.
As they say, the best way to get rich is to create something and convince someone dumber than you that they need it.
When they meet their social and financial obligation of releasing a playable game, they will be free to liquidate expensive equipment and locations they purchased to pay exorbitant bonuses, salaries, etc. That is, if there is no more profit to be had out of the game due to an underwhelming reception and backlash due to massive purchases.
That said: The game is coming. If they were smart, they would make the best game possible and continue milking it until it gets to the point where liquidation or making a new IP (if their reputation is still intact) will give them more money.
At the end of the day, they are a business.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
How anyone can think this is anything but an attempt to generate more revenue to keep the ship afloat is beyond me.
I guess they aren't selling enough ships, any more.....
I think it's about moving their target more than anything. They know they can't keep selling new ships to pay for production of ones they've sold previously so they want to focus on gaining their income from elsewhere.
Think everyone can agree it's going to be another source of income, but I think a problem is who is left to buy the split version? Imho most of the fans have already bought the 2 for 1. For it to sell, the game needs to be able to stand on it's own to feet.
I think this will be a turning point, If S42 is unable to stand on it's own, doubts for SC will set in imho
I can't argue with that. However, I feel as more and more features hit the mPU doubts will be less and less. There has been a drastic uptick in releases since the mPU, which is a good sign. I think the issues people have with Star Citizen will also reduce a bit as all of those missing features for the FPS module will start hitting the mPU (hopefully) starting with 2.2.
Whole point some backers are forgetting is a lot of us are worried this will destroy crowdfunding. Which smed who a lot of us don't trust, is one reason he took it down. Now CR is put in the smed catagory because he is not trusted by us gamers and a lot of devs. So just wanted to respond to a lot of you that is why we are concerned.
Whole point some backers are forgetting is a lot of us are worried this will destroy crowdfunding. Which smed who a lot of us don't trust, is one reason he took it down. Now CR is put in the smed catagory because he is not trusted by us gamers and a lot of devs. So just wanted to respond to a lot of you that is why we are concerned.
Um not trusted by you who is a gamer is not the same thing as not trusted by us gamers.
They know that this crowdfunding well is drying up and the games they release will not bring in enough money to keep up the extreme spending they do with offices costing $20 million and 4 offices worldwide.
Most people that pledged so far will get everything they make for free so no additional money there.
It is pretty obvious why they are doing this now. They are in big financial trouble.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
They know that this crowdfunding well is drying up and the games they release will not bring in enough money to keep up the extreme spending they do with offices costing $20 million and 4 offices worldwide.
Most people that pledged so far will get everything they make for free so no additional money there.
It is pretty obvious why they are doing this now. They are in big financial trouble.
Again evidence or speculation.
Your'e entitled to your opinion but your opinion will not be accepted as fact, sorry.
Ok, quick question: Did CIG not say you had to earn Citizenship in SQ42 to play in the open world? How does that work when they split it into two seperate products?
They are constantly changing the story and lie to everyone. No surprise there. CR will come out and say that it was always planned to be separate we are just misunderstanding it.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
When they meet their social and financial obligation of releasing a playable game, they will be free to liquidate expensive equipment and locations they purchased to pay exorbitant bonuses, salaries, etc. That is, if there is no more profit to be had out of the game due to an underwhelming reception and backlash due to massive purchases.
Yepp, you are correct. Like the $20 million offices they have worldwide all paid by backers.
The games will be released but they will be bad, because they simply don't have the technical expertise to make them good. That is by now pretty obvious.
You can sell a shit game if you do the right marketing. Look at X:Rebirth for example.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
When they meet their social and financial obligation of releasing a playable game, they will be free to liquidate expensive equipment and locations they purchased to pay exorbitant bonuses, salaries, etc. That is, if there is no more profit to be had out of the game due to an underwhelming reception and backlash due to massive purchases.
Yepp, you are correct. Like the $20 million offices they have worldwide all paid by backers.
The games will be released but they will be bad, because they simply don't have the technical expertise to make them good. That is by now pretty obvious.
You can sell a shit game if you do the right marketing. Look at X:Rebirth for example.
I suppose you're someone deeply involved with game development and thus making these assertions from a position of authority? What I mean by involved is, you are actually partaking in a large-scale, high-end game development project.
If you are involved in a high-end, long-term game development project, I also would assume that, by making these claims, you are an employee of CIG, thus having the intimate knowledge of what they can/cannot do, in terms of technical expertise?
Comments
To refresh your memory :
"--> "This package allows you to pledge for Squadron 42, bundled with Star Citizen ..."
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Packages/Squadron-42-Pledge
You will have an entry called "Star Citizen Digital Download" and "Squadron 42 Digital Download" in the description of every pledge package."
Every current package shows that both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 is included. Go ahead. Check it on the homepage. If you have pledged yourself, check it in your "My account" section.
Have fun
So imho were seeing another case where if you don't follow whats happening you're left out the loop and information like this comes as a shock.
Best Damn Space Sims Ever
for years.Right?
I guess they aren't selling enough ships, any more.....
Have fun
I would like to point you to this statement from CR in 2013 where he is discussing feature creep due to all the stretch goals:
"we don’t commit to adding features that would hold up the game’s ability to go “live” in a fully functional state."
Source: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13284-Letter-From-The-Chairman-20-Million
There was also a quote from CR in 2013 where he specificially says that stretch goals would not delay the release of the game but I cant seem to find it right now. I dont have all his quotes in a database like Erillion does.
The game was originally slated for a 2014 release and up until the end of 2013 that is what we were continually lead to believe. Only in 2014 did Chris announce that the "fans" wanted more features and the game has grown from its initial scope. Until that point, the official party line was that stretch goals would not delay the game.
Does anyone else find it odd that things seem to change only after their usefulness in getting backer donations has worn off? Here are three examples:
1. Keep backing those stretch goals because they will not delay the game.
2. Continued promoting Star Marine in all of 2015 to get those donations from CoD fans then indefinitely postponing it.
3. Initially push the game on kickstarter as "Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play)" but then change the single player portion as a separate game you have to pay for if you dont back it by this February
Disclaimer: In no way do I think the game is a scam or that CR ever intended to "steal" backer money. I do believe that there has been some mismanagement with CIG and I do not think we have been told the truth about what is going on or how much money they have left.
Not only has squadron 42 always been talked about as the single player component but it was clear squadron 42 would launch before SC. If you are going to hate the game hate it for the right reasons.
I think it's about moving their target more than anything. They know they can't keep selling new ships to pay for production of ones they've sold previously so they want to focus on gaining their income from elsewhere.
It is undoubtedly the easier part to complete and will generate additional revenue via additional customers.
I think this will be a turning point, If S42 is unable to stand on it's own, doubts for SC will set in imho
IF the game is released containing everything they set out on the roadmap and features set, I will buy it and fully support CIG/RSI from then on.
Until that happens, I am sceptical of everything they do or say.
New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
I can't be for sure but you could earn legacy honours/badges/titles through the Squadron 42 game, which wouldn't be out of the norm.
One can only speculate, but my guess would be (amongst other things) that as a "Citizen" you will have better chances to get military surplus equipment from the military, which is significantly better than the equipment you get start with. If there are ranks in official organizations (like in Elite: Dangerous) I would imagine that the higher ranks can only be obtained by those with "Citizenship". Maybe you have to pay less for services and fees as a "Citizen".
Have fun
I also believe the single player game, when released, will reach a larger portion of the public's attention generating sales from persons previously unaware of the game.
The best money making method would be to buy up assets that can be liquidated, make a decent game, piece meal sell the game and deny early reviews to boost sales and the natural attention a launch announcement would give.
Those who say the game will not be made because they think there's no reason and they can just run away with the money do not know how to make large amounts of money.
As they say, the best way to get rich is to create something and convince someone dumber than you that they need it.
When they meet their social and financial obligation of releasing a playable game, they will be free to liquidate expensive equipment and locations they purchased to pay exorbitant bonuses, salaries, etc. That is, if there is no more profit to be had out of the game due to an underwhelming reception and backlash due to massive purchases.
That said: The game is coming. If they were smart, they would make the best game possible and continue milking it until it gets to the point where liquidation or making a new IP (if their reputation is still intact) will give them more money.
At the end of the day, they are a business.
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!
They know that this crowdfunding well is drying up and the games they release will not bring in enough money to keep up the extreme spending they do with offices costing $20 million and 4 offices worldwide.
Most people that pledged so far will get everything they make for free so no additional money there.
It is pretty obvious why they are doing this now. They are in big financial trouble.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Your'e entitled to your opinion but your opinion will not be accepted as fact, sorry.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Yepp, you are correct. Like the $20 million offices they have worldwide all paid by backers.
The games will be released but they will be bad, because they simply don't have the technical expertise to make them good. That is by now pretty obvious.
You can sell a shit game if you do the right marketing. Look at X:Rebirth for example.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
If you are involved in a high-end, long-term game development project, I also would assume that, by making these claims, you are an employee of CIG, thus having the intimate knowledge of what they can/cannot do, in terms of technical expertise?