The only thing we are sure of is they selling jpegs of ships and promise to deliver. We still waiting for the deliver part and glad to know you believe they have a bunch of stuff that only they have seen. I have yet to find a point in which they decided to make the scope bigger. Which is the reason for delays and reason that the game is going to launch with 1 solar system instead of the original 20. Not to mention the fact that the 20 solar systems were already paid for when CIG raised 6 million dollars. But yea lets be gung ho about this game.
But they do are delivering, you might not like it as the early alpha as it is of the Universe but it is still happening. Progress is clearly going on several fronts and further iterations on already existent areas keeps coming to make they live up to or close to expectation. I expect a fun game, and if it is i have what i buy games for!
Also where the hell are you coming with Star Citizen is going to launch with 1 solar system? And please don't link me to Smart places.
Of course it affects you. The fact that people spend money on ships is how the whole culture of pixel-buying surrounding this game was formed. It's how it affects development and why we have ships pre-sold years before they are even in your hangar among numerous other things.
If you can't see that then you're blinded by Chris' beautiful facial features.
It does not affect me. Everything you described on your post does not affect me, i bought a Starter package of Star Citizen and i am happy with it, i don't want to spend more money and i don't have to!
How does CIG sculpting their development according to ship sales NOT affect you as a buyer? Don't you think that if they got their income through some other means, we would all have access to all available ships in alpha or at least have a form to earn them?
Of course it affects you, you're just ok with it
Also the last sentence wasn't a bait, it was a humorous comment (which at least one person seemed to get). Not everyone is out to murder you mate, you should lighten up.
Progress is clearly moving forward extremely slowly.
Some people concentrate on the "moving forward" others concentrate on the "extremely slowly".
This is the star citizen fandom / hatedom in a nutshell.
Not really, most haters pretend there's no forward momentum at all - or that it's all "for show" and everything released is (shockingly for an alpha) glitchy and full of performance issues.
That won't change, even when 2.7 and the large netcode upgrade come into play. They will always find a way to deny the game is potentially coming out at some point - and that it just might be a great game worth the wait.
I think the focus for most "haters" is how "fanatics" tend to gloss over any and all negativity, to the point of revising history. When they see that sort of willful ignorance they seek to tear the fanatics down by any means necessary.
To some people this game will always be a joke, and in some respects they are right.
Progress is clearly moving forward extremely slowly.
Some people concentrate on the "moving forward" others concentrate on the "extremely slowly".
This is the star citizen fandom / hatedom in a nutshell.
Not really, most haters pretend there's no forward momentum at all - or that it's all "for show" and everything released is (shockingly for an alpha) glitchy and full of performance issues.
That won't change, even when 2.7 and the large netcode upgrade come into play. They will always find a way to deny the game is potentially coming out at some point - and that it just might be a great game worth the wait.
I find people who deny progress as bad as people who can see into the future and predict everything will be amazing.
Would you mind sourcing how you came to the conclusion that most "haters" disregard any progress? I've noticed most "haters" claim the extremely slow development, not the lack of development at all.
Progress is clearly moving forward extremely slowly.
Some people concentrate on the "moving forward" others concentrate on the "extremely slowly".
This is the star citizen fandom / hatedom in a nutshell.
Not really, most haters pretend there's no forward momentum at all - or that it's all "for show" and everything released is (shockingly for an alpha) glitchy and full of performance issues.
That won't change, even when 2.7 and the large netcode upgrade come into play. They will always find a way to deny the game is potentially coming out at some point - and that it just might be a great game worth the wait.
I find people who deny progress as bad as people who can see into the future and predict everything will be amazing.
Would you mind sourcing how you came to the conclusion that most "haters" disregard any progress? I've noticed most "haters" claim the extremely slow development, not the lack of development at all.
I'm talking about momentum, not progress. It's a key word.
Seems to me most detractors feel that a game as ambitious as this shouldn't ever hit major roadblocks - and that it's "wrong" that progress is inevitably extremely slow, especially in the beginning. Beyond that, they seem to be in complete denial that a real momentum has been happening ever since 2.0+ and development is slowly hitting a real stride.
I'll source that when you source how supporters predict everything will be amazing. No one around here seems to have made that particular claim.
I believe we've said the potential is there - and there's nothing in development, as of yet, to take away that potential - which is why it's worth supporting.
- and that it just might be a great game worth the wait.
Anything can happen. But you know, most big budget games are produced with the intention of making a great game. Most end up being just bland or slightly above avarage. Great games just happens sometimes. It is more or less pure luck.
Looking at what is there right now, SC honestly does not currently show any signs of being "great". Even at a very early stage game like MineCraft or Counter Strike were obviously going to leave their marks in the world of gaming. I do not see that in SC yet. Not by a long shot. (Well at least not in gameplay terms. The money side is a different story...)
Progress is clearly moving forward extremely slowly.
Some people concentrate on the "moving forward" others concentrate on the "extremely slowly".
This is the star citizen fandom / hatedom in a nutshell.
Not really, most haters pretend there's no forward momentum at all - or that it's all "for show" and everything released is (shockingly for an alpha) glitchy and full of performance issues.
That won't change, even when 2.7 and the large netcode upgrade come into play. They will always find a way to deny the game is potentially coming out at some point - and that it just might be a great game worth the wait.
I find people who deny progress as bad as people who can see into the future and predict everything will be amazing.
Would you mind sourcing how you came to the conclusion that most "haters" disregard any progress? I've noticed most "haters" claim the extremely slow development, not the lack of development at all.
I'm talking about momentum, not progress. It's a key word.
Seems to me most detractors feel that a game as ambitious as this shouldn't ever hit major roadblocks - and that it's "wrong" that progress is inevitably extremely slow, especially in the beginning. Beyond that, they seem to be in complete denial that a real momentum has been happening ever since 2.0+ and development is slowly hitting a real stride.
I'll source that when you source how supporters predict everything will be amazing. No one around here seems to have made that particular claim.
I believe we've said the potential is there - and there's nothing in development, as of yet, to take away that potential - which is why it's worth supporting.
We're what? 7 months since 2.0 hit? And the only substantial addition to the game has been "persistence" in the forms of clothes shopping?
I honestly hope I'm simply not seeing this stride you're seeing and we're way on course to finally get the really long list of features the game is missing.
As for sourcing a fan's belief in amazement, you yourself only predicted a few posts ago that 2.7 and the large netcode update will be something to take notice of. Disregarding completely the fact that they still can't release monthly updates on time, we're still very far away from the ~100 player instances we've been promised let alone having a stable FPS counter when we play multiplayer.
There's plenty of other posts from the usual fans on this forum about how everything about Star Citizen changes in the future towards the much better.
- and that it just might be a great game worth the wait.
Anything can happen. But you know, most big budget games are produced with the intention of making a great game. Most end up being just bland or slightly above avarage. Great games just happens sometimes. It is more or less pure luck.
Looking at what is there right now, SC honestly does not currently show any signs of being "great". Even at a very early stage game like MineCraft or Counter Strike were obviously going to leave their marks in the world of gaming. I do not see that in SC yet. Not by a long shot. (Well at least not in gameplay terms. The money side is a different story...)
You mean games funded by a publisher exclusively invested in profit and developers who have to answer to suits and constantly cut back features to meet a deadline? Yes, a lot of those end up less than amazing.
That's a key difference here.
As for how you interpret the current information and builds - that's your business.
To me, it shows incredible potential - but that doesn't mean I'm not sceptical.
My primary concerns include:
1. Performance 2. Decent amount of capital ships and smaller ships in close proximity without game breaking down 3. Content delivery near release
I worry about all of those things - but I'm informed enough about the development process that I understand how it could never be smooth and fully functional at this stage.
Once we get to a "beta" stage, I will know for sure if there's something to worry about. So far, they've given all the right answers when people ask about those things. As in, they seem completely aware of the issues and have plans that sound extremely plausible in place for how to deal with them.
Progress is clearly moving forward extremely slowly.
Some people concentrate on the "moving forward" others concentrate on the "extremely slowly".
This is the star citizen fandom / hatedom in a nutshell.
Not really, most haters pretend there's no forward momentum at all - or that it's all "for show" and everything released is (shockingly for an alpha) glitchy and full of performance issues.
That won't change, even when 2.7 and the large netcode upgrade come into play. They will always find a way to deny the game is potentially coming out at some point - and that it just might be a great game worth the wait.
I find people who deny progress as bad as people who can see into the future and predict everything will be amazing.
Would you mind sourcing how you came to the conclusion that most "haters" disregard any progress? I've noticed most "haters" claim the extremely slow development, not the lack of development at all.
I'm talking about momentum, not progress. It's a key word.
Seems to me most detractors feel that a game as ambitious as this shouldn't ever hit major roadblocks - and that it's "wrong" that progress is inevitably extremely slow, especially in the beginning. Beyond that, they seem to be in complete denial that a real momentum has been happening ever since 2.0+ and development is slowly hitting a real stride.
I'll source that when you source how supporters predict everything will be amazing. No one around here seems to have made that particular claim.
I believe we've said the potential is there - and there's nothing in development, as of yet, to take away that potential - which is why it's worth supporting.
We're what? 7 months since 2.0 hit? And the only substantial addition to the game has been "persistence" in the forms of clothes shopping?
I honestly hope I'm simply not seeing this stride you're seeing and we're way on course to finally get the really long list of features the game is missing.
As for sourcing a fan's belief in amazement, you yourself only predicted a few posts ago that 2.7 and the large netcode update will be something to take notice of. Disregarding completely the fact that they still can't release monthly updates on time, we're still very far away from the ~100 player instances we've been promised let alone having a stable FPS counter when we play multiplayer.
There's plenty of other posts from the usual fans on this forum about how everything about Star Citizen changes in the future towards the much better.
Take notice of? Yeah, I think so.
Everything will be amazing for sure? Hardly.
Two very, very different statements.
2.0 represents the largest step yet - and every release since has added significant content, including several ships (some of them extremely elaborate), and they've added a bunch of FPS related content, missions and so on. They've expanded the amount of players possible - and they've made some major improvements to performance - even though we're a long way from the goal. Yes, they've also recently released the first persistent version of the game - which is a major step if you know anything about development.
If you can't tell the difference in momentum from 2012 to 2015 and then late 2015 to now - then I don't know what to say. Clearly, you must live in an alternate reality.
They've never promised 100 player instances. They've clearly said it's what they're aiming for - ultimately. Chris has been saying that from the start - and he's been very open about how he's not certain it's possible, but that they're going to do their best to make it happen.
You're a very obvious example of a detractor who can't tell the difference between an ambition and a promise. Not unusual, though.
As for your claim that there are others who say what you very obviously can't prove they say - that's not impressive.
Conclusively, you're doing exactly what the typical detractor does - you're completely ignoring significant content and updates - and you're denying the momentum I'm talking about. You have zero convincing arguments to support it - and you're using fantasy promises to back up your own delusional concept of what CIG has said.
2.0 represents the largest step yet - and every release since has added significant content, including several ships (some of them extremely elaborate), and they've added a bunch of FPS related content, missions and so on. They've expanded the amount of players possible - and they've made some major improvements to performance - even though we're a long way from the goal. Yes, they've also recently released the first persistent version of the game - which is a major step if you know anything about development.
Significant content my arse. A few new ships that only people who have bought them have access to, a few new guns and a few other copy pasted missions isn't significant content after 7months of development. As for persistence, I've never played an alpha version of an MMO who didn't have persistence. Stability is much better (though still as bad as you'd expect in an alpha) but that's only because 2.0 was absolutely bug ridden when it was released.
They've never promised 100 player instances. They've clearly said it's what they're aiming for - ultimately.
So what instances have they officially promised?
You're a very obvious example of a detractor who can't tell the difference between an ambition and a promise. Not unusual, though.
It's only a promise when a "detractor" calls it one right? When a fan advertises the game to potential buyers as having ~100 player instances in the future, it's all fine
As for your claim that there are others who say what you very obviously can't prove they say - that's not impressive.
What do you mean I can't prove? They are there in their post history. Just because I don't want to waste my time to go and look for posts and feed them to you, doesn't mean they aren't there. If you've been reading SC threads for a while, which you have, you should know this.
Conclusively, you're doing exactly what the typical detractor does - you're completely ignoring significant content and updates - and you're denying the momentum I'm talking about. You have zero convincing arguments to support it - and you're using fantasy promises to back up your own delusional concept of what CIG has said.
I find it ironic you're mentioning fantasy promises regarding a game by Chris Roberts
2.0 represents the largest step yet - and every release since has added significant content, including several ships (some of them extremely elaborate), and they've added a bunch of FPS related content, missions and so on. They've expanded the amount of players possible - and they've made some major improvements to performance - even though we're a long way from the goal. Yes, they've also recently released the first persistent version of the game - which is a major step if you know anything about development.
Significant content my arse. A few new ships that only people who have bought them have access to, a few new guns and a few other copy pasted missions isn't significant content after 7months of development. As for persistence, I've never played an alpha version of an MMO who didn't have persistence. Stability is much better (though still as bad as you'd expect in an alpha) but that's only because 2.0 was absolutely bug ridden when it was released.
They've never promised 100 player instances. They've clearly said it's what they're aiming for - ultimately.
So what instances have they officially promised?
You're a very obvious example of a detractor who can't tell the difference between an ambition and a promise. Not unusual, though.
It's only a promise when a "detractor" calls it one right? When a fan advertises the game to potential buyers as having ~100 player instances in the future, it's all fine
As for your claim that there are others who say what you very obviously can't prove they say - that's not impressive.
What do you mean I can't prove? They are there in their post history. Just because I don't want to waste my time to go and look for posts and feed them to you, doesn't mean they aren't there. If you've been reading SC threads for a while, which you have, you should know this.
Conclusively, you're doing exactly what the typical detractor does - you're completely ignoring significant content and updates - and you're denying the momentum I'm talking about. You have zero convincing arguments to support it - and you're using fantasy promises to back up your own delusional concept of what CIG has said.
I find it ironic you're mentioning fantasy promises regarding a game by Chris Roberts
I'm not asking you to recognise that content has been (a lot) more significant lately than it used to be. I'm specifically saying you deny that's the case. So, you're agreeing with me
They haven't officially promised much at all - except to make the best damned space game they can. I believe that's the CIG mantra when it comes to "the" promise about SC. They can't promise a specific number for instances - because they don't know yet. It's not complicated, is it?
If a fan promises something, that's a fan promise. It's not a CIG promise. I have no interest in what fans promise. Why would anyone?
CIG, today, is very careful when making promises. Chris did get excited a lot initially - but, now, he tends to be "corrected" by his team soon after talking about something that's not yet certain, and his wild statements have died down a lot lately. CIG has finally learned just how unreasonable people are when it comes to expectations based on a dreaming-out-loud lead full of vision and ambition.
I don't find it ironic that you insist on calling an ambition a promise, though. That's 100% par for the hater course.
CIG has finally learned just how unreasonable people are when it comes to expectations based on a dreaming-out-loud lead full of vision and ambition.
I firmly disagree with this. Putting it on the backers is apologism at its finest.
Roberts is soliciting for money with his unobtanium commenting so the onus is completely on him, if it was mate chat in the pub that's one thing but this is an "industry vet" trying to relay his "vision" in the hope that people will spend money. I doubt you would give Peter Molyneaux a pass...
I think some people have become "entrenched" SC haterz, lol
They will always criticize the game, regardless of what happens. If SC ends up with 10M players, they will insist that it's a failure, because it should have had 20M...
I think some people have become "entrenched" SC haterz, lol
They will always criticize the game, regardless of what happens. If SC ends up with 10M players, they will insist that it's a failure, because it should have had 20M...
Even so, they'll be playing it in secret and justifying it using Derek Smart logic
We're finally going to be able to do something they showed off over 2 years ago?
Color me damn shocked.
Now to hope they fixed the tutorial and put it back in so I can learn to unlearn the things Elite Dangerous tainted me with and actually start playing the game.
2.0 represents the largest step yet - and every release since has added significant content, including several ships (some of them extremely elaborate), and they've added a bunch of FPS related content, missions and so on. They've expanded the amount of players possible - and they've made some major improvements to performance - even though we're a long way from the goal. Yes, they've also recently released the first persistent version of the game - which is a major step if you know anything about development.
Significant content my arse. A few new ships that only people who have bought them have access to, a few new guns and a few other copy pasted missions isn't significant content after 7months of development. As for persistence, I've never played an alpha version of an MMO who didn't have persistence. Stability is much better (though still as bad as you'd expect in an alpha) but that's only because 2.0 was absolutely bug ridden when it was released.
They've never promised 100 player instances. They've clearly said it's what they're aiming for - ultimately.
So what instances have they officially promised?
You're a very obvious example of a detractor who can't tell the difference between an ambition and a promise. Not unusual, though.
It's only a promise when a "detractor" calls it one right? When a fan advertises the game to potential buyers as having ~100 player instances in the future, it's all fine
As for your claim that there are others who say what you very obviously can't prove they say - that's not impressive.
What do you mean I can't prove? They are there in their post history. Just because I don't want to waste my time to go and look for posts and feed them to you, doesn't mean they aren't there. If you've been reading SC threads for a while, which you have, you should know this.
Conclusively, you're doing exactly what the typical detractor does - you're completely ignoring significant content and updates - and you're denying the momentum I'm talking about. You have zero convincing arguments to support it - and you're using fantasy promises to back up your own delusional concept of what CIG has said.
I find it ironic you're mentioning fantasy promises regarding a game by Chris Roberts
I'm not asking you to recognise that content has been (a lot) more significant lately than it used to be. I'm specifically saying you deny that's the case. So, you're agreeing with me
I disagreed with your opinion that the content was significant just like I responded to the point you quoted. I'm not sure why you're confused about which part I disagree or agree with
They haven't officially promised much at all - except to make the best damned space game they can. I believe that's the CIG mantra when it comes to "the" promise about SC. They can't promise a specific number for instances - because they don't know yet. It's not complicated, is it?
So what about all the stretch goals? All the stuff that Chris has said they're going to include. All these are just ambitions as well? What about the way the descriptions of how the ships are going to work in the game? Are those ambitions as well? Are they selling their ambitions?
If a fan promises something, that's a fan promise. It's not a CIG promise. I have no interest in what fans promise. Why would anyone?
And where do these fans get all their ideas?. PC gaming is dying remember? SC is going to save it It was also a point to how you take notice on all the "untrue" stuff "detractors" say but have no comment on when the exact same method is used to promote the game and gather more backers.
CIG, today, is very careful when making promises. Chris did get excited a lot initially - but, now, he tends to be "corrected" by his team soon after talking about something that's not yet certain, and his wild statements have died down a lot lately. CIG has finally learned just how unreasonable people are when it comes to expectations based on a dreaming-out-loud lead full of vision and ambition.
And you have the critical thinkers/writers to thank for that, who called out CIG on all the stuff they said they'd do and didn't. Time after time again. Sadly CIG can't even keep up with their monthly updates which was part of the "tuning down" expectations so I doubt they've learned their lesson as you claim. They still have a lot of cleaning up to do.
I don't find it ironic that you insist on calling an ambition a promise, though. That's 100% par for the hater course.
Are you really saying that all the stuff Chris Roberts said he wants to do with SC are simply ambitions and not promises?
And why do you insist on referring to my person? Detractor, hater? How many posts until I level up to a Dsmart alt?
I think some people have become "entrenched" SC haterz, lol
They will always criticize the game, regardless of what happens. If SC ends up with 10M players, they will insist that it's a failure, because it should have had 20M...
As opposed to the "entrentched" SC white knights?
Remember the current SC alpha offers more content than any other AAA game in existence :pleased:
I'm not asking you to recognise that content has been (a lot) more significant lately than it used to be. I'm specifically saying you deny that's the case. So, you're agreeing with me
I disagreed with your opinion that the content was significant just like I responded to the point you quoted. I'm not sure why you're confused about which part I disagree or agree with
They haven't officially promised much at all - except to make the best damned space game they can. I believe that's the CIG mantra when it comes to "the" promise about SC. They can't promise a specific number for instances - because they don't know yet. It's not complicated, is it?
So what about all the stretch goals? All the stuff that Chris has said they're going to include. All these are just ambitions as well? What about the way the descriptions of how the ships are going to work in the game? Are those ambitions as well? Are they selling their ambitions?
If a fan promises something, that's a fan promise. It's not a CIG promise. I have no interest in what fans promise. Why would anyone?
And where do these fans get all their ideas?. PC gaming is dying remember? SC is going to save it It was also a point to how you take notice on all the "untrue" stuff "detractors" say but have no comment on when the exact same method is used to promote the game and gather more backers.
CIG, today, is very careful when making promises. Chris did get excited a lot initially - but, now, he tends to be "corrected" by his team soon after talking about something that's not yet certain, and his wild statements have died down a lot lately. CIG has finally learned just how unreasonable people are when it comes to expectations based on a dreaming-out-loud lead full of vision and ambition.
And you have the critical thinkers/writers to thank for that, who called out CIG on all the stuff they said they'd do and didn't. Time after time again. Sadly CIG can't even keep up with their monthly updates which was part of the "tuning down" expectations so I doubt they've learned their lesson as you claim. They still have a lot of cleaning up to do.
I don't find it ironic that you insist on calling an ambition a promise, though. That's 100% par for the hater course.
Are you really saying that all the stuff Chris Roberts said he wants to do with SC are simply ambitions and not promises?
And why do you insist on referring to my person? Detractor, hater? How many posts until I level up to a Dsmart alt?
You just repeated what I said, so I don't think I'm the one confused
I don't consider stretch goals promises in the way that they'll turn out exactly like I imagine, when I want them. But beyond that, I'd say they're as close to a promise as you could realistically expect from a project like this.
But you have to be more specific. What things have Chris said are going to be in the game that are not going to be in the game?
Are you asking me to answer where some random fans get their ideas? I'm sorry, but I'm not psychic. My experience with people - fans or haters - is that very, very few have the ability to set aside their emotional investment and be objective. So, I tend to be extremely sceptical about outlandish claims that I'm not personally able to support.
I was exclusively talking about detractors, though. I would never support lies or fabricated claims from anyone. I'm just not seeing these rabid lie-mongers that you're seeing around here. Maybe it's because I agree with most of them
What do you mean I have people to thank for something I didn't ask for? Since I have the ability to understand reality to a reasonable extent - I never actually believed that every single dreamy feature Chris talked about wanting in the game would necessarily make it into the game, and definitely not necessarily for release. Again, I understand the psychology of being a dreamer - and I don't think what's important is that every little thing makes it into the game. Just as long as the vision and the game match. But that's me.
I'm saying I don't consider "the" dream (my dream, your dream or CR's dream) of Star Citizen a promise at all. I'm recognising that it's a dream - and that it could never be a reality.
Some people pursue riches and fame, and when they actually achieve it - it turns out it's absolutely nothing like they expected it to be. The dream is broken. That doesn't mean riches and fame are all bad, though.
I don't pursue riches and fame, because there's little about it that appeals to me to the extent that it's worth my time in the struggle to achieve them.
In that same way, I don't pursue an impossible dream when I support Star Citizen. I support the evolution that it's almost certain to represent if they manage to finish it. I don't expect miracles - but I think it's important to have a dream if you're going to make something special.
It's not rocket science.
People who honestly believe their own fantasy version of this unreleased game is the same thing that Chris Roberts is talking about - and that he's obligated to deliver nothing less - are not only utterly naive - they're also completely ignorant of the reality of game development.
Isn't the chance for a game that could be truly, truly special enough? I mean, people are talking about promises and guarentees dealing with the world of pioneering game development. It's amazing that otherwise informed people are this dense, truly.
No, Chris Roberts is not promising everything he's talking about. He's promising that he'll do everything he can to come as close to that vision as is humanly possible for his team. No one could do more - no matter if you think of the dream as a promise or not.
Isn't the chance for a game that could be truly, truly special enough? I mean, people are talking about promises and guarentees dealing with the world of pioneering game development. It's amazing that otherwise informed people are this dense, truly.
I think you will find that most of the informed people who speak critical of SC are also backers. They also understand that should the game be released as promised, it would mean something important for the space genre. I presume it's easier to just pretend you're the smart one though and call everyone who doesn't agree with you "dense"
No, Chris Roberts is not promising everything he's talking about. He's promising that he'll do everything he can to come as close to that vision as is humanly possible for his team. No one could do more - no matter if you think of the dream as a promise or not.
So basically he can say whatever he wants about what the game might include, sell it for millions of dollars, mismanage the fuck out of it, deliver an MVP and can't be held responsible for what he's promised or said ?
How does CIG sculpting their development according to ship sales NOT affect you as a buyer? Don't you think that if they got their income through some other means, we would all have access to all available ships in alpha or at least have a form to earn them?
Of course it affects you, you're just ok with it
It does NOT affect me the money others spend on the game over the money I SPENT on the game. I don't care about the ships, i care about the one i bought, that i CAN fly. There's people who buy them on concept and there's people who buy them after they're added in the game. Also to point you are already derailed this discussion to speculative points of having them in-game or not that wasn't the point of the discussion. --'
It does not affect me, stop enforcing your opinion and view as some fact towards me and be free to feel affected while i won't.
Comments
Also where the hell are you coming with Star Citizen is going to launch with 1 solar system? And please don't link me to Smart places.
How does CIG sculpting their development according to ship sales NOT affect you as a buyer?
Don't you think that if they got their income through some other means, we would all have access to all available ships in alpha or at least have a form to earn them?
Of course it affects you, you're just ok with it
Also the last sentence wasn't a bait, it was a humorous comment (which at least one person seemed to get).
Not everyone is out to murder you mate, you should lighten up.
..Cake..
This is the star citizen fandom / hatedom in a nutshell.
..Cake..
That won't change, even when 2.7 and the large netcode upgrade come into play. They will always find a way to deny the game is potentially coming out at some point - and that it just might be a great game worth the wait.
When they see that sort of willful ignorance they seek to tear the fanatics down by any means necessary.
To some people this game will always be a joke, and in some respects they are right.
Would you mind sourcing how you came to the conclusion that most "haters" disregard any progress?
I've noticed most "haters" claim the extremely slow development, not the lack of development at all.
..Cake..
Seems to me most detractors feel that a game as ambitious as this shouldn't ever hit major roadblocks - and that it's "wrong" that progress is inevitably extremely slow, especially in the beginning. Beyond that, they seem to be in complete denial that a real momentum has been happening ever since 2.0+ and development is slowly hitting a real stride.
I'll source that when you source how supporters predict everything will be amazing. No one around here seems to have made that particular claim.
I believe we've said the potential is there - and there's nothing in development, as of yet, to take away that potential - which is why it's worth supporting.
Looking at what is there right now, SC honestly does not currently show any signs of being "great". Even at a very early stage game like MineCraft or Counter Strike were obviously going to leave their marks in the world of gaming. I do not see that in SC yet. Not by a long shot. (Well at least not in gameplay terms. The money side is a different story...)
7 months since 2.0 hit?
And the only substantial addition to the game has been "persistence" in the forms of clothes shopping?
I honestly hope I'm simply not seeing this stride you're seeing and we're way on course to finally get the really long list of features the game is missing.
As for sourcing a fan's belief in amazement, you yourself only predicted a few posts ago that 2.7 and the large netcode update will be something to take notice of. Disregarding completely the fact that they still can't release monthly updates on time, we're still very far away from the ~100 player instances we've been promised let alone having a stable FPS counter when we play multiplayer.
There's plenty of other posts from the usual fans on this forum about how everything about Star Citizen changes in the future towards the much better.
..Cake..
That's a key difference here.
As for how you interpret the current information and builds - that's your business.
To me, it shows incredible potential - but that doesn't mean I'm not sceptical.
My primary concerns include:
1. Performance
2. Decent amount of capital ships and smaller ships in close proximity without game breaking down
3. Content delivery near release
I worry about all of those things - but I'm informed enough about the development process that I understand how it could never be smooth and fully functional at this stage.
Once we get to a "beta" stage, I will know for sure if there's something to worry about. So far, they've given all the right answers when people ask about those things. As in, they seem completely aware of the issues and have plans that sound extremely plausible in place for how to deal with them.
Everything will be amazing for sure? Hardly.
Two very, very different statements.
2.0 represents the largest step yet - and every release since has added significant content, including several ships (some of them extremely elaborate), and they've added a bunch of FPS related content, missions and so on. They've expanded the amount of players possible - and they've made some major improvements to performance - even though we're a long way from the goal. Yes, they've also recently released the first persistent version of the game - which is a major step if you know anything about development.
If you can't tell the difference in momentum from 2012 to 2015 and then late 2015 to now - then I don't know what to say. Clearly, you must live in an alternate reality.
They've never promised 100 player instances. They've clearly said it's what they're aiming for - ultimately. Chris has been saying that from the start - and he's been very open about how he's not certain it's possible, but that they're going to do their best to make it happen.
You're a very obvious example of a detractor who can't tell the difference between an ambition and a promise. Not unusual, though.
As for your claim that there are others who say what you very obviously can't prove they say - that's not impressive.
Conclusively, you're doing exactly what the typical detractor does - you're completely ignoring significant content and updates - and you're denying the momentum I'm talking about. You have zero convincing arguments to support it - and you're using fantasy promises to back up your own delusional concept of what CIG has said.
..Cake..
They haven't officially promised much at all - except to make the best damned space game they can. I believe that's the CIG mantra when it comes to "the" promise about SC. They can't promise a specific number for instances - because they don't know yet. It's not complicated, is it?
If a fan promises something, that's a fan promise. It's not a CIG promise. I have no interest in what fans promise. Why would anyone?
CIG, today, is very careful when making promises. Chris did get excited a lot initially - but, now, he tends to be "corrected" by his team soon after talking about something that's not yet certain, and his wild statements have died down a lot lately. CIG has finally learned just how unreasonable people are when it comes to expectations based on a dreaming-out-loud lead full of vision and ambition.
I don't find it ironic that you insist on calling an ambition a promise, though. That's 100% par for the hater course.
I firmly disagree with this. Putting it on the backers is apologism at its finest.
Roberts is soliciting for money with his unobtanium commenting so the onus is completely on him, if it was mate chat in the pub that's one thing but this is an "industry vet" trying to relay his "vision" in the hope that people will spend money.
I doubt you would give Peter Molyneaux a pass...
They will always criticize the game, regardless of what happens. If SC ends up with 10M players, they will insist that it's a failure, because it should have had 20M...
Color me damn shocked.
Now to hope they fixed the tutorial and put it back in so I can learn to unlearn the things Elite Dangerous tainted me with and actually start playing the game.
..Cake..
Remember the current SC alpha offers more content than any other AAA game in existence :pleased:
..Cake..
I don't consider stretch goals promises in the way that they'll turn out exactly like I imagine, when I want them. But beyond that, I'd say they're as close to a promise as you could realistically expect from a project like this.
But you have to be more specific. What things have Chris said are going to be in the game that are not going to be in the game?
Are you asking me to answer where some random fans get their ideas? I'm sorry, but I'm not psychic. My experience with people - fans or haters - is that very, very few have the ability to set aside their emotional investment and be objective. So, I tend to be extremely sceptical about outlandish claims that I'm not personally able to support.
I was exclusively talking about detractors, though. I would never support lies or fabricated claims from anyone. I'm just not seeing these rabid lie-mongers that you're seeing around here. Maybe it's because I agree with most of them
What do you mean I have people to thank for something I didn't ask for? Since I have the ability to understand reality to a reasonable extent - I never actually believed that every single dreamy feature Chris talked about wanting in the game would necessarily make it into the game, and definitely not necessarily for release. Again, I understand the psychology of being a dreamer - and I don't think what's important is that every little thing makes it into the game. Just as long as the vision and the game match. But that's me.
I'm saying I don't consider "the" dream (my dream, your dream or CR's dream) of Star Citizen a promise at all. I'm recognising that it's a dream - and that it could never be a reality.
Some people pursue riches and fame, and when they actually achieve it - it turns out it's absolutely nothing like they expected it to be. The dream is broken. That doesn't mean riches and fame are all bad, though.
I don't pursue riches and fame, because there's little about it that appeals to me to the extent that it's worth my time in the struggle to achieve them.
In that same way, I don't pursue an impossible dream when I support Star Citizen. I support the evolution that it's almost certain to represent if they manage to finish it. I don't expect miracles - but I think it's important to have a dream if you're going to make something special.
It's not rocket science.
People who honestly believe their own fantasy version of this unreleased game is the same thing that Chris Roberts is talking about - and that he's obligated to deliver nothing less - are not only utterly naive - they're also completely ignorant of the reality of game development.
Isn't the chance for a game that could be truly, truly special enough? I mean, people are talking about promises and guarentees dealing with the world of pioneering game development. It's amazing that otherwise informed people are this dense, truly.
No, Chris Roberts is not promising everything he's talking about. He's promising that he'll do everything he can to come as close to that vision as is humanly possible for his team. No one could do more - no matter if you think of the dream as a promise or not.
..Cake..
It does not affect me, stop enforcing your opinion and view as some fact towards me and be free to feel affected while i won't.