Yes we all knew SQ42 was separate. The real argument and the people that signed up all because of SM seems to be forgotten here. Those people are all being denied refunds for false advertising from what they expected and bought in to couple of years back.
It is hilarious how you guys are arguing over a game that was a package and now being split apart. Yet SM which was a separate game from SC is now in SC yet when you play SC you never see SM.
Chris and Sandi must be sitting at their computers laughing their butts off distracting everyone from the original argument over SM.
But anyway guys give this 2 or 3 more months (or weeks) and the company will explode on itself as Chris and Sandi drive home in the cars SC bought them.
No doubt they are laughing at both sides all the way to the bank.
One day you people will wake up. Chris and Sandi just have to pray there are no crazies out there they swindled.
If this forum is any indication, I'd say they should start interviewing bodyguards.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Both articles offer something for "both sides" ;-), speaking plainly about what has been done and what is still left to be done.
Have fun
Thx, BTW, the Ascent article was especially good since it came from a professional in the same genre who managed to keep it objective. Yes, that's not so subtly saying that DS is not a valid, objective source any more. Especially since when I asked him whether he felt cutting SM until after release was a good idea he went silent.... yet popped back in later in the thread. Why? Easiest question of the day, he knows it's a loaded question. It's crappy that they delayed SM, but as a PM if you say that you wouldn't have done the same thing, then you're openly showing horrible project management skills. We're talking about a game that is chronically behind schedule, has had serious technical hurdles, and has managed to expand the scope of the game to ridiculous levels, so something(s) need to be cut. SM is likely the easiest thing to cut with the lowest financial upside. As a fan you probably don't want to hear those realities, but the highest priority should be releasing a game. I'd probably vote for S42 because it's the path of least resistance, it's episodic, it'll generate money and can be scaled much more easily that PU. Then, I'd opt for PU since it has much more upside for selling "stuff". Then SM, and I'd make it a purchased module if they actually turn it into a full game. So if you try to argue that they shouldn't cut SM, you're essentially admitting that you're the type of PM who will put the entire project at risk in order to execute on your vision.
That being said, I can't say that CR is the one who made this decision. I'd be surprised if he did, only because he seems to be the "dreamer" type who would blow up a schedule (and has before), so either way, if it was him or if he actually accepted someone else making the tough call, it's good for the game. I really hope that they'll cut back more and focus more on getting S42 out the door, or PU. Just something. Release, make money, release an update, make more money, release another update, make more money. Elite: Dangerous actually seemed to do it right, despite killing offline mode and taking flak for it.
Yes we all knew SQ42 was separate. The real argument and the people that signed up all because of SM seems to be forgotten here. Those people are all being denied refunds for false advertising from what they expected and bought in to couple of years back.
It is hilarious how you guys are arguing over a game that was a package and now being split apart. Yet SM which was a separate game from SC is now in SC yet when you play SC you never see SM.
your first paragraph says that its not mystery that SQ42 was separate and then you say the package was split.
why post if you arent going to make any sense?
I should of made it more clear. Way back it was all a complete package. The games them self was always separate. Yet they are now saying SM and SC was always going to be together or some such thing that CR has said. :-D
so your comment of 'Yes we all knew SQ42 was separate'
means what exactly?
and as I have stated more than once my udnerstanding is that the two products have been billed as seperates game for a least a year and at least as long as we knew what SQ42 even is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
WoW, never thought Brenics would admit that it was something already known.
Not sure what your going on about after that though, people can still get refunds and the thread isn't about SM
Guess you missed the changed TOS. No it is about making people pay for two games that use to be a package. Now people are forgetting that SM and SC were never suppose to be together but 2 separate games. Yet now they are saying it was always going to be in SC.
You SEE it NOW?
How can some people invent issues about everything related with SC is just beyond comprehension. It almost rivals the hate SWTOR received, on these boards, the months prior to it's release.
SQ42 and SC where always approached as two separate products. As a day 1 backer my profile lists them this way. As: SQ42 digital download and SC expanded universe.
Backers till Feb 2016 will have access to both regardless of which one they are more interested in. I am one of the people leaning towards SQ42. For two reasons, first because i want to play a story driven WC'like space opera and second because i do not have the time to invest heavily in SC and the PU. However, since i own this as well i will try it out. If i would become a backer now i would definitely go only for SQ42 and i would be glad to be given this option.
Customers after Feb 2016 will be given the option to choose. Now, please elaborate why is this a bad thing.
WoW, never thought Brenics would admit that it was something already known.
Not sure what your going on about after that though, people can still get refunds and the thread isn't about SM
Guess you missed the changed TOS. No it is about making people pay for two games that use to be a package. Now people are forgetting that SM and SC were never suppose to be together but 2 separate games. Yet now they are saying it was always going to be in SC.
You SEE it NOW?
How can some people invent issues about everything related with SC is just beyond comprehension. It almost rivals the hate SWTOR received, on these boards, the months prior to it's release.
SQ42 and SC where always approached as two separate products. As a day 1 backer my profile lists them this way. As: SQ42 digital download and SC expanded universe.
Backers till Feb 2016 will have access to both regardless of which one they are more interested in. I am one of the people leaning towards SQ42. For two reasons, first because i want to play a story driven WC like space opera and second because i do not have the time to invest heavily in SC and the PU. However, since i own this as well i will try it out. If i would become a backer now i would definitely go only for SQ42 and i would be glad to be given this option.
Customers after Feb 2016 will be given the option to choose. Now, please elaborate why is this a bad thing.
people have been so outraged at what they precieve as an injustice brought on by obfuscation that they are willing to obfucate
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Why change? As some have said money is the obvious answer; risk is another; target audiences is a third.
First it is pretty common for early supporters / backers to get some sort of bonus. Season ticket holders; membership of the SF Worldcon; hotel rooms / travel ticket (usually). The norm is they get a discount. And none of us would bat an eye.
They could have followed this route and simply increased the cost of the (existing) packages going forward. And said old prices no longer available.
What they have done instead is a little more sophisticated. They have split the current "double package" - the thing people have been signing up for - into two.
From a financial side (I assume) nominally it will cost more going forward to get "the double package". You will have to get both and that will - probably - mean you have to pledge more. If you already have a pledge you should already have both; as an early supporter you can feel good. (Or not!)
From a risk point of view splitting the offering into two chunks/modules/games/whatevers adds a layer of protection to the overall project. Especially if "sales" start to increase going forward - and with an alpha out there launch looks "more likely", total failure "less likely". Which will make some people more comfortable with "supporting" the game. And at some point supporting will just be buying.
Target audience: as some people have said there are those that play mmos and single player games; there are however people don't like questing / just prefer mmos; and - from company reports - there is a huge market for single player only games. Splitting the offering allows them to target all types.
Sorry this is the part where I still get hazy on. Don't tell me that they had planned for these to be separate games since the beginning because they didn't.
About 1/3 down the page there is a section called:
"The Reasons You'll Want to Play Star Citizen"
Then below that you will find:
Squadron 42 - A Wing Commander style single player mode, playable OFFLINE if you want
Playable offline or online, co-op with friends, you sign up for a tour of duty with the UEE fleet, manning the front lines, protecting settlements from Vanduul warbands.
Kickstarter Website: Mode! Some forum guy: You see it said 'Mode!' The usual suspect: Omg, Sir ... you are so wrong. (posts some links) You have to read between the lines, it actually means 'separate games, sold separately!'
The ignorant and the white knights have one thing in common. they alter the facts to fit their views...
Edit: Point still stands white knights. Changed module in mode, happy now!
We are always in a race what our intelligence can do for us and what our intelligence does to us.
Sorry this is the part where I still get hazy on. Don't tell me that they had planned for these to be separate games since the beginning because they didn't.
To reduce the haze let me condense the last three years into this summary:
Squadron 42 - solo game, offline, cinematic storyline (finished missions may be replayed in co-op mode)
Star Citizen - multiplayer game, online Persistent Universe (those who played SQ 42 have "Citizenship", but you do not have to play through SQ42 to play SC).
Kickstarter Website: Module! Some forum guy: You see it said 'Module!' The usual suspect: Omg, Sir ... you are so wrong. (posts some links) You have to read between the lines, it actually means 'separate games, sold separately!'
The ignorant and the white knights have one thing in common. they alter the facts to fit their views...
?
Real quick, Star Citizen is:
A rich universe focused on epic space adventure, trading and dogfighting in first person.
Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play)
Persistent Universe (hosted by US)
Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU)
No Subscriptions
No Pay to Win
Even the person above you linked a quote were at no point the word module was used for SQ42
So what exactly is being altered?
@Joe, don't think anyone said from the beginning, the majority of us said it has been known since last year and a couple of months, given lots of time for people to know about the split, to counter the OPs it was done suddenly.
admittedly i have no clue when they actually decisions was made, but it was done enough in advance for those interested to know and be ready for it
Sorry this is the part where I still get hazy on. Don't tell me that they had planned for these to be separate games since the beginning because they didn't.
About 1/3 down the page there is a section called:
"The Reasons You'll Want to Play Star Citizen"
Then below that you will find:
Squadron 42 - A Wing Commander style single player mode, playable OFFLINE if you want
Playable offline or online, co-op with friends, you sign up for a tour of duty with the UEE fleet, manning the front lines, protecting settlements from Vanduul warbands.
Yes..
its exactly as it say
SQ42 is and has always been billed as a separate game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I just want to make sure everyone here knows that Torrenting a game is theft. When you encourage others to do so you are encouraging illegal activity. You really should know better. It's a crime regardless of how you feel about someones pricing or sales strategy.
I just want to make sure everyone here knows that Torrenting a game is theft. When you encourage others to do so you are encouraging illegal activity. You really should know better. It's a crime regardless of how you feel about someones pricing or sales strategy.
Star Citizen and Robert Space Industries is an absolute joke. They can't make a game with $100 million that was originally supposed to be made for $6 million. Now they have split Star Citizen and Squadron 42 into separate games thereby giving their pledge backers and future players a HUGE middle finger.
And I remember them stating that Squadron 42 was just a game mode OF Star Citizen.
I will never give this idiot my money and I'm glad I never backed him. I almost did a few times over the years. I'm so glad I didn't and I feel bad for people that not only pledged the basic package but also for those that pledged for hundreds of dollars.
Sorry this is the part where I still get hazy on. Don't tell me that they had planned for these to be separate games since the beginning because they didn't.
To reduce the haze let me condense the last three years into this summary:
Squadron 42 - solo game, offline, cinematic storyline (finished missions may be replayed in co-op mode)
Star Citizen - multiplayer game, online Persistent Universe (those who played SQ 42 have "Citizenship", but you do not have to play through SQ42 to play SC).
Have fun
Seems to be a little opff-topic, sorry< about that:
Comparing the informations from the kickstarter information above
offline/online Mode
Coop with Friends
with the present informations about SQ42 on their Website because they still don't exists.
Has anyone confirmed facts about those two options ?
I just want to make sure everyone here knows that Torrenting a game is theft. When you encourage others to do so you are encouraging illegal activity. You really should know better. It's a crime regardless of how you feel about someones pricing or sales strategy.
and I want to make sure everyone knows and understands that the very first time the word 'SQ42' was spoken by CR it was understood that it was a separate game.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I just want to make sure everyone here knows that Torrenting a game is theft. When you encourage others to do so you are encouraging illegal activity. You really should know better. It's a crime regardless of how you feel about someones pricing or sales strategy.
Torrenting isn't theft, it is copying (albeit unauthorised copying). Theft is an action that results in the deprivation of the item stolen, this doesn't occur with digital goods. Jurisdiction states whether it is not a crime or not, quite a few European countries have laws that state download only is okay but "sharing" the content back is not okay.
I just want to make sure everyone here knows that Torrenting a game is theft. When you encourage others to do so you are encouraging illegal activity. You really should know better. It's a crime regardless of how you feel about someones pricing or sales strategy.
Star Citizen and Robert Space Industries is an absolute joke. They can't make a game with $100 million that was originally supposed to be made for $6 million. Now they have split Star Citizen and Squadron 42 into separate games thereby giving their pledge backers and future players a HUGE middle finger.
And I remember them stating that Squadron 42 was just a game mode OF Star Citizen.
I will never give this idiot my money and I'm glad I never backed him. I almost did a few times over the years. I'm so glad I didn't and I feel bad for people that not only pledged the basic package but also for those that pledged for hundreds of dollars.
Ridiculous. In fact, I hope everyone torrents it.
Thanks Mr. Policeman. Now can you get back on the actual topic and stop trolling?
And while everyone is throwing in their 2 cents, there's a difference between two separate games and two modes of ONE game. Chris Roberts specifically discussed TWO MODES of one game. It's right there in black and white.
I just want to make sure everyone here knows that Torrenting a game is theft. When you encourage others to do so you are encouraging illegal activity. You really should know better. It's a crime regardless of how you feel about someones pricing or sales strategy.
Torrenting isn't theft, it is copying (albeit unauthorised copying). Theft is an action that results in the deprivation of the item stolen, this doesn't occur with digital goods. Jurisdiction states whether it is not a crime or not, quite a few European countries have laws that state download only is okay but "sharing" the content back is not okay.
Murph, while I enjoy many of your posts, you really are splitting hairs on this one. Torrenting a game you did not pay for can easily be considered theft.
"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 just want to make sure everyone here knows that Torrenting a game is theft. When you encourage others to do so you are encouraging illegal activity. You really should know better. It's a crime regardless of how you feel about someones pricing or sales strategy.
Star Citizen and Robert Space Industries is an absolute joke. They can't make a game with $100 million that was originally supposed to be made for $6 million. Now they have split Star Citizen and Squadron 42 into separate games thereby giving their pledge backers and future players a HUGE middle finger.
And I remember them stating that Squadron 42 was just a game mode OF Star Citizen.
I will never give this idiot my money and I'm glad I never backed him. I almost did a few times over the years. I'm so glad I didn't and I feel bad for people that not only pledged the basic package but also for those that pledged for hundreds of dollars.
Ridiculous. In fact, I hope everyone torrents it.
Thanks Mr. Policeman. Now can you get back on the actual topic and stop trolling?
Ahh calling me out for being honest as a defense of your dishonesty. I can't claim suprise. What a mature adult would do is concede they were in error.
Like it or not you are part of society and by joining this forum also part of a community. Both have rules. One has laws. You broke the basic rule of honesty which I would like to think we would all appreciate from each other, but worse you went further and wish to condone and support criminal behavior that damages your very hobby.
Murph, while I enjoy many of your posts, you really are splitting hairs on this one. Torrenting a game you did not pay for can easily be considered theft.
In a moral sense sure, it's taking something that you don't have a right to - I don't disagree with that but under legal terminology torrenting isn't actually classed as theft which is why they declare piracy offences as infringement. I'm a bit of a pedant for absolute statements.
Murph, while I enjoy many of your posts, you really are splitting hairs on this one. Torrenting a game you did not pay for can easily be considered theft.
In a moral sense sure, it's taking something that you don't have a right to - I don't disagree with that but under legal terminology torrenting isn't actually classed as theft. I'm a bit of a pedant for absolute statements.
Your point is taken but in the context of the statements to which I was replying they intended theft.
Perhaps my original statement was unclear and for that I apologize.
As we agree on the broader point that they are indeed referring to illegal acts and you also find them immoral we can let the matter rest?
Comments
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Have fun
Thx, BTW, the Ascent article was especially good since it came from a professional in the same genre who managed to keep it objective. Yes, that's not so subtly saying that DS is not a valid, objective source any more. Especially since when I asked him whether he felt cutting SM until after release was a good idea he went silent.... yet popped back in later in the thread. Why? Easiest question of the day, he knows it's a loaded question. It's crappy that they delayed SM, but as a PM if you say that you wouldn't have done the same thing, then you're openly showing horrible project management skills. We're talking about a game that is chronically behind schedule, has had serious technical hurdles, and has managed to expand the scope of the game to ridiculous levels, so something(s) need to be cut. SM is likely the easiest thing to cut with the lowest financial upside. As a fan you probably don't want to hear those realities, but the highest priority should be releasing a game. I'd probably vote for S42 because it's the path of least resistance, it's episodic, it'll generate money and can be scaled much more easily that PU. Then, I'd opt for PU since it has much more upside for selling "stuff". Then SM, and I'd make it a purchased module if they actually turn it into a full game. So if you try to argue that they shouldn't cut SM, you're essentially admitting that you're the type of PM who will put the entire project at risk in order to execute on your vision.
That being said, I can't say that CR is the one who made this decision. I'd be surprised if he did, only because he seems to be the "dreamer" type who would blow up a schedule (and has before), so either way, if it was him or if he actually accepted someone else making the tough call, it's good for the game. I really hope that they'll cut back more and focus more on getting S42 out the door, or PU. Just something. Release, make money, release an update, make more money, release another update, make more money. Elite: Dangerous actually seemed to do it right, despite killing offline mode and taking flak for it.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
and as I have stated more than once my udnerstanding is that the two products have been billed as seperates game for a least a year and at least as long as we knew what SQ42 even is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
SQ42 and SC where always approached as two separate products. As a day 1 backer my profile lists them this way. As: SQ42 digital download and SC expanded universe.
Backers till Feb 2016 will have access to both regardless of which one they are more interested in. I am one of the people leaning towards SQ42. For two reasons, first because i want to play a story driven WC'like space opera and second because i do not have the time to invest heavily in SC and the PU. However, since i own this as well i will try it out. If i would become a backer now i would definitely go only for SQ42 and i would be glad to be given this option.
Customers after Feb 2016 will be given the option to choose. Now, please elaborate why is this a bad thing.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
First it is pretty common for early supporters / backers to get some sort of bonus. Season ticket holders; membership of the SF Worldcon; hotel rooms / travel ticket (usually). The norm is they get a discount. And none of us would bat an eye.
They could have followed this route and simply increased the cost of the (existing) packages going forward. And said old prices no longer available.
What they have done instead is a little more sophisticated. They have split the current "double package" - the thing people have been signing up for - into two.
From a financial side (I assume) nominally it will cost more going forward to get "the double package". You will have to get both and that will - probably - mean you have to pledge more. If you already have a pledge you should already have both; as an early supporter you can feel good. (Or not!)
From a risk point of view splitting the offering into two chunks/modules/games/whatevers adds a layer of protection to the overall project. Especially if "sales" start to increase going forward - and with an alpha out there launch looks "more likely", total failure "less likely". Which will make some people more comfortable with "supporting" the game. And at some point supporting will just be buying.
Target audience: as some people have said there are those that play mmos and single player games; there are however people don't like questing / just prefer mmos; and - from company reports - there is a huge market for single player only games. Splitting the offering allows them to target all types.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description
About 1/3 down the page there is a section called:
"The Reasons You'll Want to Play Star Citizen"
Then below that you will find:Playable offline or online, co-op with friends, you sign up for a tour of duty with the UEE fleet, manning the front lines, protecting settlements from Vanduul warbands.
Some forum guy: You see it said 'Mode!'
The usual suspect: Omg, Sir ... you are so wrong. (posts some links) You have to read between the lines, it actually means 'separate games, sold separately!'
The ignorant and the white knights have one thing in common. they alter the facts to fit their views...
Edit: Point still stands white knights. Changed module in mode, happy now!
Squadron 42 - solo game, offline, cinematic storyline (finished missions may be replayed in co-op mode)
Star Citizen - multiplayer game, online Persistent Universe (those who played SQ 42 have "Citizenship", but you do not have to play through SQ42 to play SC).
Have fun
Look ..... i dont mind pay 60 usd
or even box+sub
but look close wtf happen here and figure out
Real quick, Star Citizen is:
- A rich universe focused on epic space adventure, trading and dogfighting in first person.
- Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play)
- Persistent Universe (hosted by US)
- Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU)
- No Subscriptions
- No Pay to Win
Even the person above you linked a quote were at no point the word module was used for SQ42So what exactly is being altered?
@Joe, don't think anyone said from the beginning, the majority of us said it has been known since last year and a couple of months, given lots of time for people to know about the split, to counter the OPs it was done suddenly.
admittedly i have no clue when they actually decisions was made, but it was done enough in advance for those interested to know and be ready for it
its exactly as it say
SQ42 is and has always been billed as a separate game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
When you encourage others to do so you are encouraging illegal activity.
You really should know better.
It's a crime regardless of how you feel about someones pricing or sales strategy.
Comparing the informations from the kickstarter information above
- offline/online Mode
- Coop with Friends
with the present informations about SQ42 on their Website because they still don't exists.Has anyone confirmed facts about those two options ?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Torrenting isn't theft, it is copying (albeit unauthorised copying).
Theft is an action that results in the deprivation of the item stolen, this doesn't occur with digital goods.
Jurisdiction states whether it is not a crime or not, quite a few European countries have laws that state download only is okay but "sharing" the content back is not okay.
Thanks Mr. Policeman. Now can you get back on the actual topic and stop trolling?
And while everyone is throwing in their 2 cents, there's a difference between two separate games and two modes of ONE game. Chris Roberts specifically discussed TWO MODES of one game. It's right there in black and white.
I can't claim suprise.
What a mature adult would do is concede they were in error.
Like it or not you are part of society and by joining this forum also part of a community.
Both have rules.
One has laws.
You broke the basic rule of honesty which I would like to think we would all appreciate from each other, but worse you went further and wish to condone and support criminal behavior that damages your very hobby.
Your behavior is poor.
In a moral sense sure, it's taking something that you don't have a right to - I don't disagree with that but under legal terminology torrenting isn't actually classed as theft which is why they declare piracy offences as infringement. I'm a bit of a pedant for absolute statements.
Perhaps my original statement was unclear and for that I apologize.
As we agree on the broader point that they are indeed referring to illegal acts and you also find them immoral we can let the matter rest?