He's saying your tactic of blanket dismissal is offensive, as if he feels he has a point, and you're shutting down his aspect of conversation with a disrespectful, irrelevant, wholesale gesture, as "calling someone a troll". You're reducing the issue by watering it down to the surroundings, but we're not talking about surroundings, and similarly, "just because others have done x, does not make it acceptable to do x".
I've had discussion along these lines with Erillion. Maybe some of you guys take the "opposing side stance" you take, because this is a matter of your ethic and world view. It doesn't make it "wrong", as a matter of fact it may be a culture thing, as arguing the finer points of "not being a cannibal" with an indigenous Amazon tribe. From "my" side, the past CIG behavior is not "good", nor is it something I would imagine to do to people, but it's also possible I've never been so hard up for cash and success that I felt I had to walk that line of questionable moral relativism. I've never been hungry or desperate enough to consider cannibalism, so with that Amazon person, we might argue, he might think I'm silly. It doesn't mean he's not a person who eats people, and nothing really makes that "ok".
He's saying your tactic of blanket dismissal is offensive, as if he feels he has a point, and you're shutting down his aspect of conversation with a disrespectful, irrelevant, wholesale gesture, as "calling someone a troll". You're reducing the issue by watering it down to the surroundings, but we're not talking about surroundings, and similarly, "just because others have done x, does not make it acceptable to do x".
I've had discussion along these lines with Erillion. Maybe some of you guys take the "opposing side stance" you take, because this is a matter of your ethic and world view. It doesn't make it "wrong", as a matter of fact it may be a culture thing, as arguing the finer points of "not being a cannibal" with an indigenous Amazon tribe. From "my" side, the past CIG behavior is not "good", nor is it something I would imagine to do to people, but it's also possible I've never been so hard up for cash and success that I felt I had to walk that line of questionable moral relativism. I've never been hungry or desperate enough to consider cannibalism, so with that Amazon person, we might argue, he might think I'm silly. It doesn't mean he's not a person who eats people, and nothing really makes that "ok".
I guess I haven't made myself clear, so I'll try again.
If I said something that was actually demeaning before this turned silly, I'm willing to entertain that possibility. But I need clear and precise examples - not "you were demeaning" over and over again.
That doesn't make much of an impression, to be honest.
I can only speak for myself - and I generally don't respond well to people who can't speak for themselves. That's yet another sign of having no actual argument to contribute.
Essentially, why not let the person who claims to have had his opinions "demeaned" answer for himself? We're all adults here, right?
If he can't explain himself, then how am I supposed to take that seriously?
As for how you feel demeaned by others, that's not really my concern. If you have a problem with Erillion and you've felt demeaned by him - then take it up with him. It has nothing to do with me.
What it sounds like is that some of you seem to confuse having no arguments left with being demeaned. That's not necessarily the case.
If you can't respond to my points rationally, then why not entertain the possiblity that your position is weak? Is that so thinkable?
I "think" being a "CIG apologist" is a standpoint advocating "causing harm to unaware people", and further, "causing harm to the game crowdfunding industry". It "demeans" me by "demeaning" something on which I feel passionately.
People don't read terms of service. Is that CIG's fault? If someone listens to the sale propaganda, gets excited, throws them 500 bucks, doesn't know about past broken promises, doesn't understand Roberts is a really big dreamer with significantly less potential to deliver as dream and talk, doesn't know they can't legitimately get a refund after 14 days, doesn't know thousands of people would tell them to do otherwise, is that CIG's fault?
We know better. If we don't say something, it is our fault. Being aware, being insightful, being educated, while carrying a degree of security, carries an equal amount of responsibility. You know, for example, that "not all, as a matter of fact, not a huge percentage" of what the company propagandizes will come true. You should be pointing to this, not being combative when another attempts to illustrate it, however informal or maladroit their articulation of the matter.
I "think" being a "CIG apologist" is a standpoint advocating "causing harm to unaware people", and further, "causing harm to the game crowdfunding industry". It "demeans" me by "demeaning" something on which I feel passionately.
People don't read terms of service. Is that CIG's fault? If someone listens to the sale propaganda, gets excited, throws them 500 bucks, doesn't know about past broken promises, doesn't understand Roberts is a really big dreamer with significantly less potential to deliver as dream and talk, doesn't know they can't legitimately get a refund after 14 days, doesn't know thousands of people would tell them to do otherwise, is that CIG's fault?
We know better. If we don't say something, it is our fault. Being aware, being insightful, being educated, while carrying a degree of security, carries an equal amount of responsibility. You know, for example, that "not all, as a matter of fact, not a huge percentage" of what the company propagandizes will come true. You should be pointing to this, not being combative when another attempts to illustrate it, however informal or maladroit their articulation of the matter.
To claim that someone is being demeaning, you first have to understand what the word means.
intended to make a person or thing seem of little importance or value <demanded an apology from the men's football coach for his demeaning comments on women athletes>
I think calling everyone who argues against your position "CIG apologists" - is incredibly demeaning.
However, I'm the kind of person who doesn't care about being demeaned. Essentially, I don't really fret about being called an "apologist" - as it's such a weak blanket statement. It's useless and does nothing to counter my position. It's also not at all what I am.
Now, when I disagree that these flaws of CIG are "a big deal" - I'm actually demeaning your opinion?
Simply by disagreeing with you - I'm somehow demeaning your opinions.
I've openly stated that Chris Roberts is too excited in public - and he's bad at estimating release dates. That's on Chris.
So, I don't disagree it's "his fault". It IS his fault - as much as one's nature can ever be one's fault.
I simply disagree it's a big deal worthy of the level of criticism it's receiving. It's annoying - and it's frustrating - but that's that.
Why? Because the game is what matters - as in: the end result.
That's my opinion.
If that's demeaning to you - then I think you need to take a good, hard look at yourself and your ability to ever have a constructive exchange with anyone who disagrees with you.
@rpmcmurphy man i went round and round with some of these people and you are talking to a wall. That guy won't budge one inch when it comes to anything negative about star citizen. No matter how small or big the issue or how well you lay out an explanation. He won't hear its a waste of time. I usually don't throw up a name like that but he will pull you into a raving conversation you will regret.
@rpmcmurphy man i went round and round with some of these people and you are talking to a wall. That guy won't budge one inch when it comes to anything negative about star citizen. No matter how small or big the issue or how well you lay out an explanation. He won't hear its a waste of time. I usually don't throw up a name like that but he will pull you into a raving conversation you will regret.
We can't all be "budging" as much as you guys are
But, it's true, I actually have a reason for my opinions. I don't budge until I see a reason to budge.
That's very much me.
If you really feel the need to form a circle of victims being demeaned by the nasty DKLond and all the other "CIG apologists" - then that's your choice.
It's not going to make an impression, though.
If you want to make an impression - and if you want me to "budge" - then start by being reasonable and then by presenting your arguments in a rational way.
You would also do well to do away with all this juvenile victim business. It doesn't become your position at all.
He's saying your tactic of blanket dismissal is offensive, as if he feels he has a point, and you're shutting down his aspect of conversation with a disrespectful, irrelevant, wholesale gesture, as "calling someone a troll". You're reducing the issue by watering it down to the surroundings, but we're not talking about surroundings, and similarly, "just because others have done x, does not make it acceptable to do x".
I've had discussion along these lines with Erillion. Maybe some of you guys take the "opposing side stance" you take, because this is a matter of your ethic and world view. It doesn't make it "wrong", as a matter of fact it may be a culture thing, as arguing the finer points of "not being a cannibal" with an indigenous Amazon tribe. From "my" side, the past CIG behavior is not "good", nor is it something I would imagine to do to people, but it's also possible I've never been so hard up for cash and success that I felt I had to walk that line of questionable moral relativism. I've never been hungry or desperate enough to consider cannibalism, so with that Amazon person, we might argue, he might think I'm silly. It doesn't mean he's not a person who eats people, and nothing really makes that "ok".
You know having faced this with other game discussions I totally get where you're coming from. However, the reason I don't give a fuck? A certain few of you have spent an absurd amount of time trotting out any pointless bit of tosh about this game and then tarting it up as the most damning, apocalyptic proof that this game is doomed. And every fucking time its just the same old crying wolf making mountains out of mole hills, as the game keeps on keeping on.
Please keep in mind I'm trying to explain this is bluntly as I can in the attempt to explain the situation we have now. It is a statement made to educate and not belittle, and I apologize in advance if I sound harsh. I'm sure I'll end up sounding like an asshole to you regardless as George Carlin once said "Everyone loves honesty until you are honest with them. Then you're just an asshole." But hey, I'll at least make the attempt.
While there are certainly rational criticisms to be made about this game you don't help yourselves by turning every little negative talking point into "The Sky Is Falling!!! OMG!!! FIRE!! FLOOD!! RAGNAROK!!!!!" So I am truly sorry if you feel many of us are being dismissive about your arguments, but don't pretend for one second its we who are accountable for most of the blame. You anti-fans keep shooting yourselves in the foot by turning what could be a quite rational and meaningful discussion into near comedic parody by being unable to refrain from rampant panic mongering. Its your own fault that now days, so many here can now only see your side of the argument as being similar to the Adam Sandler "Oh Mom" skit from the comedy album "They're All Going To Laugh At You."
That is the best summary of the problem with the Bars of Shame/he-who-cannot-be-named crowd, especially the last paragraph. That is why I keep feeling the need to append my critical posts of SC with "but I'm not a hater". You can be critical without hyperbole and conspiracy theories.
Speaking of conspiracy theories, sometimes I wonder if we don't have a COINTELPRO type thing going on. Meaning someone is purposely creating useless threads and making ridiculous posts that put the Anti's in a bad light. O.o
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
Wow, way to take a point to the furthest reaches of space. I love it when you take Chris getting my money by telling me the game would be delivered in 2014 and then telling me again in 2013 that stretch goals would not delay that release and then acting like he never said it or it was my fault for making him deal with "artificial deadlines" and comparing it to me never saying anything that could be seen as a lie to my child. Bravo!
While we seem to agree that Chris has continued to say one thing and then act surprised when people expect that one thing to happen, it is the acceptance of this standard that amazes me. You seem to point out that many other game companies do this and you are correct, they do. That does not make it right.
Now I will go off on a crazy comparison just like you do. Many people lie in the real world, so it is ok. Many people murder and kill others so it is ok. See what I did there? I took a fact like "Chris Roberts saying one thing and then acting surprised when we expect that thing to happen" and I beat the urine out of it to make it fit into some stupid comparison, just like you did when you compared a game company lying to get more sales to a father never saying anything that could be seen as untrue to his child.
Now tell me oh wise one, why should game companies be allowed to list features to gain sales and then stop taking refunds when their features can not make it into the product? Why are people who were shown videos of star marine not allowed refunds after Chris showed them video after video in 2015 of gameplay? I understand features can change but when they do, isnt it fair to also allow refunds?
Well if you backed the game solely based on the game being delivered in 2014 then it's not only sad, but it's unrealistic. You probably shouldn't back crowdfunded games, considering they are routinely late. If you'd like I have a full list of games from crowdfunding and when they were delivered to illustrate this for you to assist in your next purchase decision.
As far as comparisons go, a general rule of thumb is that you ship within 6 months of announcing a product at a trade show (at least in my industry). The game industry announces much further out than that, in fact years out. There are good reasons for this, believe it or not, but it also introduces heightened risk. Generally speaking, we are REALLY good at estimating tasks that are shorter. Actually, the shorter the task, the more accurate we are in estimating it. So announcing a game 2 or 3 years out is ridiculous. If you whole-heartedly believed that the ESTIMATED ship date was solid, then I'm sorry for that. Welcome to video games. Be prepared for many disappointments. Remember exactly what I told you here because it won't change.
SO!!! It's not that I'm accepting or allowing for a standard of behaviour, it's that I'm understanding the realities of project management. As I said, if this is, in fact, a surprise to you then I'm really sorry you needed to find out this way, but I'm very happy to be able to enlighten you. If you'd like to try a fun exercise to illustrate, try writing down what you're going to try to accomplish this week. Next, write down what you're going to try to accomplish over the next 2 years, and not loose stuff, like tight stuff, things that are difficult, things that will be hard. I will guarantee you'll fail on the second, and you'll probably do pretty well on the first.
As far as your rights as a consumer, you are pledging your money, that's how crowdfunding works. In general, you abandon all rights to a refund once you've pledged your money. It's right there in the Kickstarter TOS. However, CIG did the right thing and allowed for refunds for a period of time. That's not something that's unprescedented, but it's certainly not common place. So while you're chastizing them for not allowing refunds, I would say, they allowed you to get a refund for quite some time. So who's fault is it that they didn't get a refund when they had the opportunity to do so? Certainly not mine! Certainly not CIG! Please do everyone a favor and take some responsibility for your own actions. Maybe crowdfunding just isn't for you.
I think you folks are arguing over the wrong points. The real issue is with Chris and how during the first two years he never gave any indication of the increased time needed to make the game. We are told during the kickstarter that he would make the base game that everyone could play and then add modules over time. We were told in 2013 that stretch goals would not delay the release. Even in late 2013 Chris was still promoting the 2014 launch of a playable game.
Then BAM!!! Suddenly in 2015 we are told he wont be held to "artificial timelines" and the vision of the game has increased. If there was any indication in the first two years the game would take longer I have not been able to find it and it gives justification to the early adopters to be a bit angry at Chris for going back on the things he has said.
This is just one example, Star Marine is another. Chris spent most of 2015 promoting it and showing demo after demo and then in 2016 BAM! We have it in 2.0? Not even close. Take a look at the Star Marine videos Chris used to promote the game in 2015 and then tell me we have that in 2.0?
Chris is his own worst enemy. He says thing-A and then a year later acts like everyone else is wrong for expecting that thing-A to happen.
Think about what you're saying here, really.
Have you ever followed a major AAA game in development? Are you aware how common delays are?
It's the NORM - not the exception.
Whenever a project lead is called before the suits - he's doing his best to estimate a release date based on CURRENT information. That's essentially all he can do.
Isn't it odd how delays are the norm - ESPECIALLY for the best games out there - if it's about being your own worst enemy?
I mean are THAT many top developers really complete idiots?
Based on the ORIGINAL plan WAY before the funding exploded - Chris Roberts estimated a release date, and he had absolutely no way of knowing just how big the budget would become. The original stretch goals were much less ambitious and there was no reason to state they would delay the release date.
The NEW stretch goals added AFTER funding exploded changed things - and that's why the scope of the game grew so much.
When you're dedicated to making the best game possible - using ALL of your budget - it's not a trivial matter to come up with precise release dates, because it's a constantly changing environment.
If the game had started out with a 150 million dollar budget and a team already assembled, then maybe you'd have a point here. But that's not what happened.
Also, people acting like Star Marine was this huge deal is silly. It was always going to be a test-bed for FPS mechanics and nothing more. SC 2.0 came online sooner than expected and as such, the development focus is on that - because it's vital to the game as a whole.
Only a fool would want CIG to focus resources on a separate module using only FPS mechanics now, because it would mean delaying progress for the "real" game. Star Marine will come out at some point - when they have people free to handle that part of the game. The original plan was changed for a good reason.
That said, yes, Chris Roberts is particularly bad at estimating release dates - I'll grant you that. I was also annoyed about that for a while, until I realised and accepted that was just part of his enthusiasm. He's pushing limits and he's trying to motivate his team. Is that wise? I don't know - maybe it's not.
But it's hardly the end of the world, is it.
Yet what you are really saying is no one should expect anything CR says should be taken as truth? It is okay to lie to us, yet it really isn't a lie because none of us understand how these things work? LOL
But when CR said it he knows how this works better than any of us. Yet we can't even hold him to what he says because we do not know how these things work?
I think you folks are arguing over the wrong points. The real issue is with Chris and how during the first two years he never gave any indication of the increased time needed to make the game. We are told during the kickstarter that he would make the base game that everyone could play and then add modules over time. We were told in 2013 that stretch goals would not delay the release. Even in late 2013 Chris was still promoting the 2014 launch of a playable game.
Then BAM!!! Suddenly in 2015 we are told he wont be held to "artificial timelines" and the vision of the game has increased. If there was any indication in the first two years the game would take longer I have not been able to find it and it gives justification to the early adopters to be a bit angry at Chris for going back on the things he has said.
This is just one example, Star Marine is another. Chris spent most of 2015 promoting it and showing demo after demo and then in 2016 BAM! We have it in 2.0? Not even close. Take a look at the Star Marine videos Chris used to promote the game in 2015 and then tell me we have that in 2.0?
Chris is his own worst enemy. He says thing-A and then a year later acts like everyone else is wrong for expecting that thing-A to happen.
Think about what you're saying here, really.
Have you ever followed a major AAA game in development? Are you aware how common delays are?
It's the NORM - not the exception.
Whenever a project lead is called before the suits - he's doing his best to estimate a release date based on CURRENT information. That's essentially all he can do.
Isn't it odd how delays are the norm - ESPECIALLY for the best games out there - if it's about being your own worst enemy?
I mean are THAT many top developers really complete idiots?
Based on the ORIGINAL plan WAY before the funding exploded - Chris Roberts estimated a release date, and he had absolutely no way of knowing just how big the budget would become. The original stretch goals were much less ambitious and there was no reason to state they would delay the release date.
The NEW stretch goals added AFTER funding exploded changed things - and that's why the scope of the game grew so much.
When you're dedicated to making the best game possible - using ALL of your budget - it's not a trivial matter to come up with precise release dates, because it's a constantly changing environment.
If the game had started out with a 150 million dollar budget and a team already assembled, then maybe you'd have a point here. But that's not what happened.
Also, people acting like Star Marine was this huge deal is silly. It was always going to be a test-bed for FPS mechanics and nothing more. SC 2.0 came online sooner than expected and as such, the development focus is on that - because it's vital to the game as a whole.
Only a fool would want CIG to focus resources on a separate module using only FPS mechanics now, because it would mean delaying progress for the "real" game. Star Marine will come out at some point - when they have people free to handle that part of the game. The original plan was changed for a good reason.
That said, yes, Chris Roberts is particularly bad at estimating release dates - I'll grant you that. I was also annoyed about that for a while, until I realised and accepted that was just part of his enthusiasm. He's pushing limits and he's trying to motivate his team. Is that wise? I don't know - maybe it's not.
But it's hardly the end of the world, is it.
Yet what you are really saying is no one should expect anything CR says should be taken as truth? It is okay to lie to us, yet it really isn't a lie because none of us understand how these things work? LOL
But when CR said it he knows how this works better than any of us. Yet we can't even hold him to what he says because we do not know how these things work?
Did I get that right?
No, you didn't get it right at all.
However, you definitely shouldn't believe any developer of any major game early in development when it comes to estimating release dates.
Well not to derail the back and forth arguments (that pro guys initiate and perpetuate to try and get posts locked)
Until they have a game world that doesnt disappear it doesnt matter. How long before that happens. I now they have claimed it was going to be sooner rather than later. But that will be another bench mark for them to fail at. Because with persistence comes a whole other set of issues. But luckily for them there arent more than a few dozen people playing the tech demo right now (despite there being millions of backers clamoring for the game) so they shouldnt have any server issues. Which is another thing that will be interesting to watch unfold.
In the spirit of CR's movie career I will leave this vision with all of you.
The sun looks large on the horizon while it sets for the night....we see an 80 thousand dollar car driving away and with it two people smiling at each other while they drive off into the sunset.........
But luckily for them there arent more than a few dozen people playing the tech demo right now
Please explain which data you use for this estimate.
For the sim-pod testing (Arena Commander) there is a way to estimate the amount of testers based on the leaderboard (and its not accurate because not everyone is listed there and it only lists the testers that work on a certain patch number .... with around 150 patches in 6 months not every volunteer tested each and every patch).
For the Alpha 2.3 "Crusader" i am interested how you derive tester numbers for your estimate.
In the spirit of CR's movie career I will leave this vision with all of you.
The sun looks large on the horizon while it sets for the night....we see an 80 thousand dollar car driving away and with it two people smiling at each other while they drive off into the sunset.........
CUT IT'S A WRAP!
I'm pretty sure the budget for this vaporware project allows for a more expensive car
In the spirit of CR's movie career I will leave this vision with all of you.
The sun looks large on the horizon while it sets for the night....we see an 80 thousand dollar car driving away and with it two people smiling at each other while they drive off into the sunset.........
CUT IT'S A WRAP!
I'm pretty sure the budget for this vaporware project allows for a more expensive car
Well I only know Sandi owns an 80k car. How she can afford a car like that when they were broke when they started the SC kickstarter. :-D
In the spirit of CR's movie career I will leave this vision with all of you.
The sun looks large on the horizon while it sets for the night....we see an 80 thousand dollar car driving away and with it two people smiling at each other while they drive off into the sunset.........
CUT IT'S A WRAP!
I'm pretty sure the budget for this vaporware project allows for a more expensive car
Well I only know Sandi owns an 80k car. How she can afford a car like that when they were broke when they started the SC kickstarter. :-D
Oh, so now there's a fantasy of them being broke, too?
I suppose she should have sold her car instead of crowdfunding the game
@rpmcmurphy man i told you its like talking to a wall. Sooner or later they bait you into saying something you shouldn't then you are in the jail with Brenics. You would be more productive throwing grass at a tree seeing if it falls down.
@rpmcmurphy man i told you its like talking to a wall. Sooner or later they bait you into saying something you shouldn't then you are in the jail with Brenics. You would be more productive throwing grass at a tree seeing if it falls down.
Are you saying the tree conspired with SC devs to get you to 'donate' the grass?
Comments
I've had discussion along these lines with Erillion. Maybe some of you guys take the "opposing side stance" you take, because this is a matter of your ethic and world view. It doesn't make it "wrong", as a matter of fact it may be a culture thing, as arguing the finer points of "not being a cannibal" with an indigenous Amazon tribe. From "my" side, the past CIG behavior is not "good", nor is it something I would imagine to do to people, but it's also possible I've never been so hard up for cash and success that I felt I had to walk that line of questionable moral relativism. I've never been hungry or desperate enough to consider cannibalism, so with that Amazon person, we might argue, he might think I'm silly. It doesn't mean he's not a person who eats people, and nothing really makes that "ok".
If I said something that was actually demeaning before this turned silly, I'm willing to entertain that possibility. But I need clear and precise examples - not "you were demeaning" over and over again.
That doesn't make much of an impression, to be honest.
I can only speak for myself - and I generally don't respond well to people who can't speak for themselves. That's yet another sign of having no actual argument to contribute.
Essentially, why not let the person who claims to have had his opinions "demeaned" answer for himself? We're all adults here, right?
If he can't explain himself, then how am I supposed to take that seriously?
As for how you feel demeaned by others, that's not really my concern. If you have a problem with Erillion and you've felt demeaned by him - then take it up with him. It has nothing to do with me.
What it sounds like is that some of you seem to confuse having no arguments left with being demeaned. That's not necessarily the case.
If you can't respond to my points rationally, then why not entertain the possiblity that your position is weak? Is that so thinkable?
People don't read terms of service. Is that CIG's fault? If someone listens to the sale propaganda, gets excited, throws them 500 bucks, doesn't know about past broken promises, doesn't understand Roberts is a really big dreamer with significantly less potential to deliver as dream and talk, doesn't know they can't legitimately get a refund after 14 days, doesn't know thousands of people would tell them to do otherwise, is that CIG's fault?
We know better. If we don't say something, it is our fault. Being aware, being insightful, being educated, while carrying a degree of security, carries an equal amount of responsibility. You know, for example, that "not all, as a matter of fact, not a huge percentage" of what the company propagandizes will come true. You should be pointing to this, not being combative when another attempts to illustrate it, however informal or maladroit their articulation of the matter.
Here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/demeaning
intended to make a person or thing seem of little importance or value <demanded an apology from the men's football coach for his demeaning comments on women athletes>
I think calling everyone who argues against your position "CIG apologists" - is incredibly demeaning.
However, I'm the kind of person who doesn't care about being demeaned. Essentially, I don't really fret about being called an "apologist" - as it's such a weak blanket statement. It's useless and does nothing to counter my position. It's also not at all what I am.
Now, when I disagree that these flaws of CIG are "a big deal" - I'm actually demeaning your opinion?
Simply by disagreeing with you - I'm somehow demeaning your opinions.
I've openly stated that Chris Roberts is too excited in public - and he's bad at estimating release dates. That's on Chris.
So, I don't disagree it's "his fault". It IS his fault - as much as one's nature can ever be one's fault.
I simply disagree it's a big deal worthy of the level of criticism it's receiving. It's annoying - and it's frustrating - but that's that.
Why? Because the game is what matters - as in: the end result.
That's my opinion.
If that's demeaning to you - then I think you need to take a good, hard look at yourself and your ability to ever have a constructive exchange with anyone who disagrees with you.
But, it's true, I actually have a reason for my opinions. I don't budge until I see a reason to budge.
That's very much me.
If you really feel the need to form a circle of victims being demeaned by the nasty DKLond and all the other "CIG apologists" - then that's your choice.
It's not going to make an impression, though.
If you want to make an impression - and if you want me to "budge" - then start by being reasonable and then by presenting your arguments in a rational way.
You would also do well to do away with all this juvenile victim business. It doesn't become your position at all.
meanwhile, gravity.
----> It helps if you do it at the first orbital velocity in vacuuo ;-)
"Gravity is just a theory." ;-)
---> In fact - we still have no definite idea how gravity really works.
Is the game economy "live" ? Page 9 and several days after OP post ... IMHO still no ;-)
Have fun
Speaking of conspiracy theories, sometimes I wonder if we don't have a COINTELPRO type thing going on. Meaning someone is purposely creating useless threads and making ridiculous posts that put the Anti's in a bad light. O.o
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
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
----------------
But when CR said it he knows how this works better than any of us. Yet we can't even hold him to what he says because we do not know how these things work?
Did I get that right?
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!
However, you definitely shouldn't believe any developer of any major game early in development when it comes to estimating release dates.
I would strongly advise against it.
Until they have a game world that doesnt disappear it doesnt matter. How long before that happens. I now they have claimed it was going to be sooner rather than later. But that will be another bench mark for them to fail at. Because with persistence comes a whole other set of issues. But luckily for them there arent more than a few dozen people playing the tech demo right now (despite there being millions of backers clamoring for the game) so they shouldnt have any server issues. Which is another thing that will be interesting to watch unfold.
The sun looks large on the horizon while it sets for the night....we see an 80 thousand dollar car driving away and with it two people smiling at each other while they drive off into the sunset.........
CUT IT'S A WRAP!
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!
For the sim-pod testing (Arena Commander) there is a way to estimate the amount of testers based on the leaderboard (and its not accurate because not everyone is listed there and it only lists the testers that work on a certain patch number .... with around 150 patches in 6 months not every volunteer tested each and every patch).
For the Alpha 2.3 "Crusader" i am interested how you derive tester numbers for your estimate.
Have fun
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!
I suppose she should have sold her car instead of crowdfunding the game
Amazing Stories - Episode Brenics!
Once again....
Do you have even a SHRED of verifyable proof for your claim that "they were broke" ?
If this is a rumour ... or your personal opinion ... please make it clear that it is an opinion or rumour.
Have fun