Thourne said: Badly phrased so for clarity-> I mean Multiple accounts purchased by individuals that are then given away.
Yes. I believe. I watched the thing growing and the way that other numbers did not backed up that growing. Their tactics. Their marketing approach. And how they adapted themselves. How they reacted to different situations. So, that's why I believe. I know that sounds shocking, because people did not follow it as I did. And different from fanboys, I am not trying to make up things.
If accountability once appears to the public, I will be proven right. And more than 50%, actually, would be optimistic. I wouldn't be surprised if its even less actual buyers.
Chris Roberts wrote a long missive recently, which was part of the basis of your article, accusing all kinds of ridiculous conspiracies and people lying about his project, management, etc. etc. Then, while accusing others of lying and committing fraud and crimes against him, he lied himself. . . .
So he lies. Is that simple. Don't see who is with their heads buried in the sand.
Easy, tiger.
First, I was talking about you calling @Erillion a liar for using the numbers he's been using to talk about backers. His numbers are valid, but like any other data the real picture is more complex that just the numbers. That doesn't make his figures wrong, it just means they don't tell the entire picture. You can't spend six pages painting the picture for a two-sentence point, though.
Secondly, I'm very familiar with SC's early campaign considering I spent quite a bit of time in Austin covering it. I made a number of friends through those days, actually. Several folks I still talk to fairly regularly. Thus, you don't really need to educate me on the differences between the vision now and the vision back then. You realize I did just write an article kind of blasting Roberts for not upholding what I consider to be a number of promises to backers, right?
That said, you don't just call people liars. Besides the fact that it makes you look like an idiot *cough*Smart*cough* ...it's also a flag to everyone in the conversation that you've ceased to give any credence to the possibility that you may be wrong, and only idiots are never wrong.
For my part, I don't really think Chris set out to hose anyone. I think he genuinely has a dream of a fantastic game, and I think many "impossible" things are absolutely possible when you stop letting other people's boundaries define your reality. (There's a Gladwell-esque comment about racial equality somewhere in the statement, too. I'm just a complex guy like that...) I just also think Chris has a solid dose of hubris and like many entrepreneurs, his safety switch is broken to the point where he doesn't process risk well.
Don't hate someone because you disagree with them. Just disagree with them. Hate is something you save for... I don't know... cucumbers, or something. ....Actually, people who's cellphones go off at the symphony. You know who you are you bastard. Don't pretend I didn't see you... Couldn't wait for fortissimo, could you? No! Had to be during the damn mezzo-piano to take your bloody call, you philistine....
But let me ask you then: who is here advocating the unknown factor and who likes the safe well-known side for 90 mil $$?
Seems to me that 990.487ish people (minus the 0.01 % that so far wanted a refund) are advocating the unknown factor because they support this project.
Have fun
PS: Hmm .. for the Trekkies amongst you ... "To boldly go ...."
Yes and I even sympathize with you. But we live in an era where money doesn't bond well with the unknown (or maybe in a lottery ). In Star Trek series money doesn't even exists. I really hope it will succeed but still I cannot help it but worry about the future of this game.
EDIT- Check your sources on when CR started development. He was quoted in October of 2012 as spending the past year working on the very first demos of SC. He showed this demo to PC Gamer on October 9th of 2012.
I checked those sources many times in the last years. It can be interpreted in various ways - depending on what part of the source texts you quote - which some claim as evidence that it all started in 2011 (if "past year" equals "one full year" to you) and others that it all started sometime in 2012 (if "spend the past year" means "spend time in 2012 to create the demo" to you). It also depends if you consider one man working on an idea as an official start date ... or a team of 2,3,5, XXX.... (in October 2012 it was a team of 5, working for free).
Have fun
It can be interpreted in various ways? That's not a very effective counter-argument, as both those words ("past" and "year") are very finitely defined.
I'm going to assume he wasn't being completely facetious in saying "past year" and take it to mean at least 9-10 months. Why his claim in this interview (meaning 12 months) would err on the side of longer than he has actually spent developing it would completely confound me, as it would be more impressive to pad the stat the other way to humble-brag about the progress he's made in such a short timeframe (meaning: one might reasonably call 14 months a year because it's close and the progress looks even better/more efficient with 2 months of work time shaved off). However, I'll refrain from making such a psychological argument on semantics and focus on the crux of the issue. That places the start of development at the beginning of 2011. So we're less than 3 months from 4 full years of development. Seeing as how the demo shown to PC Gamer was pretty much a rough Hangar and Dogfighting module minus enemy NPCs (He jumps into the cockpit in the Hangar and exits into an asteroid field before landing on the outside of the carrier. Missiles were described being used in the demo.), There's not been a whole helluva lot of progress building game systems within those modules since before the Kickstarter.
So what's he been doing with all those tens of millions he received during and after the campaign?
Chris Roberts wrote a long missive recently, which was part of the basis of your article, accusing all kinds of ridiculous conspiracies and people lying about his project, management, etc. etc. Then, while accusing others of lying and committing fraud and crimes against him, he lied himself. . . .
So he lies. Is that simple. Don't see who is with their heads buried in the sand.
Easy, tiger.
First, I was talking about you calling @Erillion a liar for using the numbers he's been using to talk about backers. His numbers are valid
No. They are not. How possibly a number that is clearly not the number of actual buyers been referred as the number of buyers and be considered as "valid". Last I heard mathematics is a exact science. Not a feeling. Not faith. 1 + 1 is not equal 3. That is INVALID, not valid. Go ask proof about this number to Chris Roberts representing the actual number of buyers and then go back here and talk to me about the "validity" of that number. Chris Roberts himself went to public and told in a time that they had around 120k accounts (where using the same logic you and Erillion would call 120k backers something valid to claim) that 40k accounts never pledged. It was like a slip. He did not notice probably what he was actually revealing or the implications of that apparently. What he said, was in the objective to motivate sales. And the thing is, is that for those accounts who had pledge according with him (80k), he did not mention how many of them were multiple accounts. There is no reason to believe that the trend ever change and the discrepancy between that number and reality only grew, because, along the project, only bad things started to happen in general. They went from a good reputation to a very bad one and more doubts been raised. So, there is no reason, realistically, to presume that would lead more people to pledge than before. Sure that raised. But quietly, that raised more due the acts of the whales than the act of actual new backers. That's why its bullshit. Its totally invalid.
Its the same thing that I offer you a ticket to a show saying to you, that 100k were sold already, making you excited to participate with so many people of such social event, and in the day of the show, just 5k people to appear (and yes, they were all the buyers). Valid my $#%#%!
What you claim as "valid" and "not a lie", it's so invalid, that if the authorities or an accountability willing to look for wrong doings due a lawsuit/investigation find in their books that this number is incorrect and bringing back the statements of Roberts stating that number as "backers" it will count too as a false advertising, which is against the law. The authorities will consider that a lie. So go talk to them to learn that too, ok?
Why do you think that they are fleeing from accountability? I highly doubt that they will find too much things like, Roberts stealing money. But in general, these guys make a lot of bullshit that they know that are wrong, but ends to be "general practices in the game industry" and they totally underestimate the risk, because nobody cares and nobody ever goes to the point of a lawsuit, related to consumer issues and accountability.
Here, they were silly. Because how they approached to the market and the crazy things/prices that they offered to people, etc. different to any other game or development ever. As well as the time/passion and effort that they asked to people to make for them. They underestimated that in their situation, the risk of a lawsuit was bigger than for any other game, ever, due how they forced the situation.
So, its for a lot of things that people think that "are ok", is that they will be screwed in the moment that the lawsuit pop up. And in the top of that, things can become even worst, because due the disregard of Roberts and co. have been demonstrating by laws, even with public statements that disrespect them, while thinking that are telling something ok, or doing something ok, I wouldn't doubt that they did a lot of other kinds of bs to maximize profit, take advantage of the situation, etc, which are totally against the law and were done all in their "nobody ever will check' basis. And all that will add more bullets to the case and fines in the end for the company.
So, that's it. I don't hate anyone or anything. It's just a fact.
No. They are not. How possibly a number that is clearly not the number of actual buyers been referred as the number of buyers and be considered as "valid". Last I heard mathematics is a exact science. Not a feeling. Not faith. 1 + 1 is not equal 3. That is INVALID, not valid.
You may or may not have heard that old joke that 90% of statistics can say whatever you want them to 100% of the time?
Numbers are finite, but what they represent isn't always so concrete. A guy buys an account for himself and gives it away to a guy who buys another account for his daughter. Three accounts purchased, but only one of them for the person who bought it. Is that one account, or three? Does the father/daughter combo count as one or two? What if they share one account?
Number are just weird. The same number can say a lot of things, and depending on how you query the data, you can get completely different answers.
I bought an account, what you might call a whale account, three others that I gave away to friends who were overseas and couldn't participate in the initial campaign, and another bot account. I paid for five, and up until recently, had two. ...since my bot account was really just for testing some scripts against their chat server, I never really logged into it, and it pretty much did it's own thing. Now you might argue that since I owned them both, it's one user. However, since my bot was at least as intelligent as the average user in chat, I think I could make the argument that it should qualify as a user in and of itself.
But even if we ignored all that, and let's say fully half the accounts a a few whales, which is virtually impossible, it doesn't matter. There are still that many accounts, thus that many backers of record, and who really cares whether it's 700 backers or 700,000? It's still $90 million, no matter who contributed the cash.
Dude. People are supposed to be hating me in this thread. You're stealing my flames, and that's really not cool. You need to re-evaluate your position. If people are thinking you're dumber than I am, you've probably swung too far in one direction on the matter. Folks aren't liars because you don't agree with their data... You just don't agree with their data. Attack that, not the person.
SC is in the very edge of what is possible, sometimes beyond it.
... and this is probably the main point of all "haters" here on this forum. Well said sir.
One has to push out the boundaries of what is known and thought possible to advance into and conquer the unknown.
Have fun
... and sometimes several astronauts burn to death on the launch pad. Just because they're "pushing out boundaries" does not mean they'll be successful.
But, hey, CitizenCon starts in less than two days. If they have a ready to release FPS module, or some actual gameplay videos of anything other than what they've already shown, then all this may blow over in the hype train.
If they have nothing but new, non-gameplay, CGI videos and new ship announcements, then they might as well stand behind a giant gym fan and start throwing cow manure into it cause that will set the presses on fire.
As a backer, Star Citizen just confuses me these days. It's really very feature bloated and scandal-ridden. Every time I get an email from them advertising a new ship, I just laugh at the prices as well.
No. They are not. How possibly a number that is clearly not the number of actual buyers been referred as the number of buyers and be considered as "valid". Last I heard mathematics is a exact science. Not a feeling. Not faith. 1 + 1 is not equal 3. That is INVALID, not valid.
You may or may not have heard that old joke that 90% of statistics can say whatever you want them to 100% of the time?
Numbers are finite, but what they represent isn't always so concrete. A guy buys an account for himself and gives it away to a guy who buys another account for his daughter. Three accounts purchased, but only one of them for the person who bought it. Is that one account, or three? Does the father/daughter combo count as one or two? What if they share one account?
Actually were two purchases in your example. not one neither three - We are talking about numbers here, so, there is no "opinion" or "agree or not". It's not subjective. Its objective. Or its accurate, or its not.
But here's the thing. Forget mathematics or complications. Statistics (I pronounced that in the Jim Carrey style now lol) has nothing to do with this. There is nothing complicated here.
When you refer to accounts and registrations you are been accurate. When you refer that as "backers" you are misrepresenting. And its undeniable that people are been totally mislead by that and assuming, in general, that they actually are near of 1 million 'backers'.
Want to refer to that number? Refer to that number to what actually represents that number, instead helping in a false advertising campaign.
And if you think that it does not matter, it matters. That's actually the most common tactic of scam. To claim that "everyone is buying, buy that too". These numbers have the same effect. And if they are not accurate, or misrepresent, they are false advertising. If you don't believe me, ask any legal authority.
I am not saying that Star Citizen is a con. Or a long con. But nobody is able to say today, with absolute certainty that its not, and there are evidences that could be. See?
Imagine that its a con. You and others helped the con men to mislead people. Congratulations.
So, the thing is. Each day, regarding Star Citizen, its important to be more accurate than ever, at least if you care with people, something that those devs have been demonstrating, as you wisely described in your own article, that they don't.
The original release date given during its kickstarter was: "Star Citizen will launch in November 2014 for backers, and for the public in 2015." While the kickstarter is no longer available the original release date
What? The original release date was Nov/2014. There was no mention about release for backers in 2014 and for public in 2015 originally:
LOL, have you even looked at those links? The estimated delivery date for all the content was November 2014. Roberts stated in an interview to TenTonHammer the exact line I quoted.
and scroll down the right side and read the estimated delivery dates. That date isnt made up, it is what Roberts gave at the very beginning. I know because I was there as an original KS backer and I wrote down all the key points. Since then he has done what he could to move the dates up and hide any mention of the original published release date.
You check the packages.
"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
The whole semantics debate is a tad deep in the weeds for me. But I will concede that if one uses a number(however one defines it) as a marketing point there is some merit to providing an accurate definition of the numbers you use.
No. They are not. How possibly a number that is clearly not the number of actual buyers been referred as the number of buyers and be considered as "valid". Last I heard mathematics is a exact science. Not a feeling. Not faith. 1 + 1 is not equal 3. That is INVALID, not valid.
You may or may not have heard that old joke that 90% of statistics can say whatever you want them to 100% of the time?
Numbers are finite, but what they represent isn't always so concrete. A guy buys an account for himself and gives it away to a guy who buys another account for his daughter. Three accounts purchased, but only one of them for the person who bought it. Is that one account, or three? Does the father/daughter combo count as one or two? What if they share one account?
Actually were two purchases in your example. not one neither three - We are talking about numbers here, so, there is no "opinion" or "agree or not". It's not subjective. Its objective. Or its accurate, or its not.
He is just talking about the difference between data and information. They are not the same. Information is a human thing and data can be misinterpreted.
You are talking about data and he is referring to information you get from it.
Everyone should go invest in some shares of ConAgra Foods inc. Orvile Redenbacher demand is up 10x since the start of this thread. There's some numbers for ya. lol
Why should he make a finished product when he is pulling in millions by selling pixels that aren't even made yet. The guy has the most awesome scam going and now his brother is taking over to fill his pockets and cover up what CR has been doing.
The original release date given during its kickstarter was: "Star Citizen will launch in November 2014 for backers, and for the public in 2015." While the kickstarter is no longer available the original release date
What? The original release date was Nov/2014. There was no mention about release for backers in 2014 and for public in 2015 originally:
LOL, have you even looked at those links? The estimated delivery date for all the content was November 2014. Roberts stated in an interview to TenTonHammer the exact line I quoted.
and scroll down the right side and read the estimated delivery dates. That date isnt made up, it is what Roberts gave at the very beginning. I know because I was there as an original KS backer and I wrote down all the key points. Since then he has done what he could to move the dates up and hide any mention of the original published release date.
You check the packages.
I think that you misunderstood what I said. I said exactly what you said, except that you mentioned that "for the public" the release would be 2015. There is no mention of that "originally", as you said. MEaning that the release for the backers and for the public should be the same date: Nov/2014. I just clarified this.
99.99 % of the backers voting with their wallet, hitting stretch goal after extra stretch goal until Chris Roberts had to call "Stop" on the stretch goals (AGAINST a poll by the backers who still wanted more).
Have fun
Once again you skirt issues and produce half-truths. I dont see anywhere on that link of yours where it is stated that hitting a stretch goal will delay the game another year. I do see where Roberts himself addressed this issue back in 2013 here:
and stated: "we don’t commit to adding features that would hold up the game’s ability
to go “live” in a fully functional state. Also remember that this is
not like a typical retail boxed product — there is no rule that all
features and content have to come online at the same time! As you can
see from the Hangar Module we plan to make functionality and content
come on line as it’s ready, so you should look at the stretch goals as a
window into the future of functionality and content additions we plan
for the live game."
I also remember the estimated delivery date of November 2014 stated on the right hand side of the original kickstarter campaign that I posted above.
Can you please link us to the chairman letter that states: "hitting the next stretch goal will delay the game a year or two"? Can you even link to a goal that says if it is hit it means the game will have to be delayed? 99.99% of people did not vote to push back release, they were told these stretch goals would not delay release by Roberts himself.
Dont believe me? Check the forums from back in 2013 here:
Look at all the people who supported Roberts and said the goals would not delay the game.
Have fun!
"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
99.99 % of the backers voting with their wallet, hitting stretch goal after extra stretch goal until Chris Roberts had to call "Stop" on the stretch goals (AGAINST a poll by the backers who still wanted more).
Have fun
Once again you skirt issues and produce half-truths. I dont see anywhere on that link of yours where it is stated that hitting a stretch goal will delay the game another year. I do see where Roberts himself addressed this issue back in 2013 here:
and stated: "we don’t commit to adding features that would hold up the game’s ability
to go “live” in a fully functional state. Also remember that this is
not like a typical retail boxed product — there is no rule that all
features and content have to come online at the same time! As you can
see from the Hangar Module we plan to make functionality and content
come on line as it’s ready, so you should look at the stretch goals as a
window into the future of functionality and content additions we plan
for the live game."
I also remember the estimated delivery date of November 2014 stated on the right hand side of the original kickstarter campaign that I posted above.
Can you please link us to the chairman letter that states: "hitting the next stretch goal will delay the game a year or two"? Can you even link to a goal that says if it is hit it means the game will have to be delayed? 99.99% of people did not vote to push back release, they were told these stretch goals would not delay release by Roberts himself.
Dont believe me? Check the forums from back in 2013 here:
Look at all the people who supported Roberts and said the goals would not delay the game.
Have fun!
Wow, that thread doe... Before the big hooplah on these forums about the Escapist article, I had never really given this product more than a second thought..
After following the big ole SC thread in the game forums and now this feature and thread... I wish I hadn't. The sheer amount of disappointment in the progress and management of the project that I've read since I started... The worst part is how the ending to this story could affect crowdfunding in the future.
Thankfully I'm not on the hook for money. If I was I would be trying to get my refund while there was still money to get back... Anyone on the hook that isn't trying is a fool.
The leadership is clearly clueless and something is wrong. You don't answer critics with legal action unless you have a LOT to hide. And you certainly don't do it with an in-house lawyer when playing with millions of dollars. CIG is in way over their heads.
So...how's that legal action against The Escapist going? What? There has been no legal action? But Chris Roberts said that the deadline for The Escapist retracting their article and apologizing was last Monday!!! Surely he wasn't just bluffing. Was he?
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
So...how's that legal action against The Escapist going? What? There has been no legal action? But Chris Roberts said that the deadline for The Escapist retracting their article and apologizing was last Monday!!! Surely he wasn't just bluffing. Was he?
Silence basically says one of two things, most were right and it was just a bluff, or both sides have taken the mature route to handling a legal matter, private.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So...how's that legal action against The Escapist going? What? There has been no legal action? But Chris Roberts said that the deadline for The Escapist retracting their article and apologizing was last Monday!!! Surely he wasn't just bluffing. Was he?
Silence basically says one of two things, most were right and it was just a bluff, or both sides have taken the mature route to handling a legal matter, private.
Any legal filing is a matter of public record. Now if there's a settlement, that would be in private.
So...how's that legal action against The Escapist going? What? There has been no legal action? But Chris Roberts said that the deadline for The Escapist retracting their article and apologizing was last Monday!!! Surely he wasn't just bluffing. Was he?
Silence basically says one of two things, most were right and it was just a bluff, or both sides have taken the mature route to handling a legal matter, private.
So...how's that legal action against The Escapist going? What? There has been no legal action? But Chris Roberts said that the deadline for The Escapist retracting their article and apologizing was last Monday!!! Surely he wasn't just bluffing. Was he?
Silence basically says one of two things, most were right and it was just a bluff, or both sides have taken the mature route to handling a legal matter, private.
Any legal filing is a matter of public record. Now if there's a settlement, that would be in private.
Sure, but most don't air their dirty laundry to the public before hand willingly. IF they're moving forward they're doing so quietly was all I was saying. Moving forward doesn't have to be today, could be next friday .
Though I doubt they will, seemed like posturing in the first place.I think if they had any plans from the start they'd have been a lot more calculated in how they delivered their rebuttal/warning...The strong words were most likely just emotional reaction, "taking the bully pulpit" Hoping to find weakness in The Escapist's position.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
If accountability once appears to the public, I will be proven right. And more than 50%, actually, would be optimistic. I wouldn't be surprised if its even less actual buyers.
First, I was talking about you calling @Erillion a liar for using the numbers he's been using to talk about backers. His numbers are valid, but like any other data the real picture is more complex that just the numbers. That doesn't make his figures wrong, it just means they don't tell the entire picture. You can't spend six pages painting the picture for a two-sentence point, though.
Secondly, I'm very familiar with SC's early campaign considering I spent quite a bit of time in Austin covering it. I made a number of friends through those days, actually. Several folks I still talk to fairly regularly. Thus, you don't really need to educate me on the differences between the vision now and the vision back then. You realize I did just write an article kind of blasting Roberts for not upholding what I consider to be a number of promises to backers, right?
That said, you don't just call people liars. Besides the fact that it makes you look like an idiot *cough*Smart*cough* ...it's also a flag to everyone in the conversation that you've ceased to give any credence to the possibility that you may be wrong, and only idiots are never wrong.
For my part, I don't really think Chris set out to hose anyone. I think he genuinely has a dream of a fantastic game, and I think many "impossible" things are absolutely possible when you stop letting other people's boundaries define your reality. (There's a Gladwell-esque comment about racial equality somewhere in the statement, too. I'm just a complex guy like that...) I just also think Chris has a solid dose of hubris and like many entrepreneurs, his safety switch is broken to the point where he doesn't process risk well.
Don't hate someone because you disagree with them. Just disagree with them. Hate is something you save for... I don't know... cucumbers, or something. ....Actually, people who's cellphones go off at the symphony. You know who you are you bastard. Don't pretend I didn't see you... Couldn't wait for fortissimo, could you? No! Had to be during the damn mezzo-piano to take your bloody call, you philistine....
...maybe we should stick with cucumbers...
In Star Trek series money doesn't even exists. I really hope it will succeed but still I cannot help it but worry about the future of this game.
I'm going to assume he wasn't being completely facetious in saying "past year" and take it to mean at least 9-10 months. Why his claim in this interview (meaning 12 months) would err on the side of longer than he has actually spent developing it would completely confound me, as it would be more impressive to pad the stat the other way to humble-brag about the progress he's made in such a short timeframe (meaning: one might reasonably call 14 months a year because it's close and the progress looks even better/more efficient with 2 months of work time shaved off). However, I'll refrain from making such a psychological argument on semantics and focus on the crux of the issue. That places the start of development at the beginning of 2011. So we're less than 3 months from 4 full years of development. Seeing as how the demo shown to PC Gamer was pretty much a rough Hangar and Dogfighting module minus enemy NPCs (He jumps into the cockpit in the Hangar and exits into an asteroid field before landing on the outside of the carrier. Missiles were described being used in the demo.), There's not been a whole helluva lot of progress building game systems within those modules since before the Kickstarter.
So what's he been doing with all those tens of millions he received during and after the campaign?
Go ask proof about this number to Chris Roberts representing the actual number of buyers and then go back here and talk to me about the "validity" of that number.
Chris Roberts himself went to public and told in a time that they had around 120k accounts (where using the same logic you and Erillion would call 120k backers something valid to claim) that 40k accounts never pledged. It was like a slip. He did not notice probably what he was actually revealing or the implications of that apparently. What he said, was in the objective to motivate sales.
And the thing is, is that for those accounts who had pledge according with him (80k), he did not mention how many of them were multiple accounts.
There is no reason to believe that the trend ever change and the discrepancy between that number and reality only grew, because, along the project, only bad things started to happen in general. They went from a good reputation to a very bad one and more doubts been raised. So, there is no reason, realistically, to presume that would lead more people to pledge than before. Sure that raised. But quietly, that raised more due the acts of the whales than the act of actual new backers. That's why its bullshit. Its totally invalid.
Its the same thing that I offer you a ticket to a show saying to you, that 100k were sold already, making you excited to participate with so many people of such social event, and in the day of the show, just 5k people to appear (and yes, they were all the buyers). Valid my $#%#%!
What you claim as "valid" and "not a lie", it's so invalid, that if the authorities or an accountability willing to look for wrong doings due a lawsuit/investigation find in their books that this number is incorrect and bringing back the statements of Roberts stating that number as "backers" it will count too as a false advertising, which is against the law. The authorities will consider that a lie. So go talk to them to learn that too, ok?
Why do you think that they are fleeing from accountability? I highly doubt that they will find too much things like, Roberts stealing money. But in general, these guys make a lot of bullshit that they know that are wrong, but ends to be "general practices in the game industry" and they totally underestimate the risk, because nobody cares and nobody ever goes to the point of a lawsuit, related to consumer issues and accountability.
Here, they were silly. Because how they approached to the market and the crazy things/prices that they offered to people, etc. different to any other game or development ever. As well as the time/passion and effort that they asked to people to make for them. They underestimated that in their situation, the risk of a lawsuit was bigger than for any other game, ever, due how they forced the situation.
So, its for a lot of things that people think that "are ok", is that they will be screwed in the moment that the lawsuit pop up. And in the top of that, things can become even worst, because due the disregard of Roberts and co. have been demonstrating by laws, even with public statements that disrespect them, while thinking that are telling something ok, or doing something ok, I wouldn't doubt that they did a lot of other kinds of bs to maximize profit, take advantage of the situation, etc, which are totally against the law and were done all in their "nobody ever will check' basis. And all that will add more bullets to the case and fines in the end for the company.
So, that's it. I don't hate anyone or anything. It's just a fact.
Numbers are finite, but what they represent isn't always so concrete. A guy buys an account for himself and gives it away to a guy who buys another account for his daughter. Three accounts purchased, but only one of them for the person who bought it. Is that one account, or three? Does the father/daughter combo count as one or two? What if they share one account?
Number are just weird. The same number can say a lot of things, and depending on how you query the data, you can get completely different answers.
I bought an account, what you might call a whale account, three others that I gave away to friends who were overseas and couldn't participate in the initial campaign, and another bot account. I paid for five, and up until recently, had two. ...since my bot account was really just for testing some scripts against their chat server, I never really logged into it, and it pretty much did it's own thing. Now you might argue that since I owned them both, it's one user. However, since my bot was at least as intelligent as the average user in chat, I think I could make the argument that it should qualify as a user in and of itself.
But even if we ignored all that, and let's say fully half the accounts a a few whales, which is virtually impossible, it doesn't matter. There are still that many accounts, thus that many backers of record, and who really cares whether it's 700 backers or 700,000? It's still $90 million, no matter who contributed the cash.
Dude. People are supposed to be hating me in this thread. You're stealing my flames, and that's really not cool. You need to re-evaluate your position. If people are thinking you're dumber than I am, you've probably swung too far in one direction on the matter. Folks aren't liars because you don't agree with their data... You just don't agree with their data. Attack that, not the person.
But, hey, CitizenCon starts in less than two days. If they have a ready to release FPS module, or some actual gameplay videos of anything other than what they've already shown, then all this may blow over in the hype train.
If they have nothing but new, non-gameplay, CGI videos and new ship announcements, then they might as well stand behind a giant gym fan and start throwing cow manure into it cause that will set the presses on fire.
We are talking about numbers here, so, there is no "opinion" or "agree or not". It's not subjective. Its objective. Or its accurate, or its not.
But here's the thing. Forget mathematics or complications. Statistics (I pronounced that in the Jim Carrey style now lol) has nothing to do with this. There is nothing complicated here.
When you refer to accounts and registrations you are been accurate. When you refer that as "backers" you are misrepresenting. And its undeniable that people are been totally mislead by that and assuming, in general, that they actually are near of 1 million 'backers'.
Want to refer to that number? Refer to that number to what actually represents that number, instead helping in a false advertising campaign.
And if you think that it does not matter, it matters. That's actually the most common tactic of scam. To claim that "everyone is buying, buy that too". These numbers have the same effect. And if they are not accurate, or misrepresent, they are false advertising. If you don't believe me, ask any legal authority.
I am not saying that Star Citizen is a con. Or a long con. But nobody is able to say today, with absolute certainty that its not, and there are evidences that could be. See?
Imagine that its a con. You and others helped the con men to mislead people. Congratulations.
So, the thing is. Each day, regarding Star Citizen, its important to be more accurate than ever, at least if you care with people, something that those devs have been demonstrating, as you wisely described in your own article, that they don't.
Go to this link you quoted:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description
and scroll down the right side and read the estimated delivery dates. That date isnt made up, it is what Roberts gave at the very beginning. I know because I was there as an original KS backer and I wrote down all the key points. Since then he has done what he could to move the dates up and hide any mention of the original published release date.
You check the packages.
You are talking about data and he is referring to information you get from it.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
I just clarified this.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13284-Letter-From-The-Chairman-20-Million
and stated: "we don’t commit to adding features that would hold up the game’s ability to go “live” in a fully functional state. Also remember that this is not like a typical retail boxed product — there is no rule that all features and content have to come online at the same time! As you can see from the Hangar Module we plan to make functionality and content come on line as it’s ready, so you should look at the stretch goals as a window into the future of functionality and content additions we plan for the live game."
I also remember the estimated delivery date of November 2014 stated on the right hand side of the original kickstarter campaign that I posted above.
Can you please link us to the chairman letter that states: "hitting the next stretch goal will delay the game a year or two"? Can you even link to a goal that says if it is hit it means the game will have to be delayed? 99.99% of people did not vote to push back release, they were told these stretch goals would not delay release by Roberts himself.
Dont believe me? Check the forums from back in 2013 here:
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/52006/hoping-new-stretch-goals-won-t-delay-release
Look at all the people who supported Roberts and said the goals would not delay the game.
Have fun!
After following the big ole SC thread in the game forums and now this feature and thread... I wish I hadn't. The sheer amount of disappointment in the progress and management of the project that I've read since I started... The worst part is how the ending to this story could affect crowdfunding in the future.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/14727-The-Escapist-Explains-Its-Star-Citizen-Sources-Vetting-and-Respo
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Though I doubt they will, seemed like posturing in the first place.I think if they had any plans from the start they'd have been a lot more calculated in how they delivered their rebuttal/warning...The strong words were most likely just emotional reaction, "taking the bully pulpit" Hoping to find weakness in The Escapist's position.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson