@Erillion OMG I completely forgot about the Swedish Mafia!
And then we're somehow supposed to take it seriously and eat it up; man... not even trying! Aliens! If you can hear me, please take me with you!!!!
I heard that the Swedish Mafia and Trump Aliens have actually been running the Kickstarter site since 1980!
Trump will be president ...
therefore ANYTHING is possible, including aliens owning Kickstarter for decades ....
I know which one I would prefer.
Have fun
PS: Have to go back and play SC Alpha 2.6 to take my mind off that scary thought. No ... not the one about the aliens ....
yes even time itself can be altered. In fact, it will be possible to literally hear one thing said and that same thing denied having been said within the same breath.
'I will drain the swamp except that I never said that so I will not do it'
yeah sounds about right
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Are you referring to who I think has been saying that CIG is using the mocap studio as a facade for money laundry? I didn't got it at first but I have heard that... somewhere.
I heard that they are fronting those stuidos to raise money to so that they can stay in contact with the aliens that came in contact with them and that they are laundrying that money to the alien currency so that they can build a big space ship that looks like a Trump head and send it down to attack us all.
Are you referring to who I think has been saying that CIG is using the mocap studio as a facade for money laundry? I didn't got it at first but I have heard that... somewhere.
I heard that they are fronting those stuidos to raise money to so that they can stay in contact with the aliens that came in contact with them and that they are laundrying that money to the alien currency so that they can build a big space ship that looks like a Trump head and send it down to attack us all.
but I am not sure if what I heard is accurate
Isn't this related to Pizzagate?
I heard that there is a direct link between Kickstarters that started in 1980 and Pizzagate
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yes, Derek Smart is a polarizing figure, but regardless of what you think about him, he does make valid points. A lot is riding on the success of this game, and if it fails, the failure will bring consequences to the industry.
On a positive note, I hope this situation encourages quality crowdfunding companies to be more transparent with their idea, game, and company, and I hope it encourages companies to have robust lines of communication with backers, potential backers, and fans.
Yes, Derek Smart is a polarizing figure, but regardless of what you think about him, he does make valid points. A lot is riding on the success of this game, and if it fails, the failure will bring consequences to the industry. ...
this is no longer true.
There now has been a good number of kickstarter successes, early access successes and as we speak 3 of the 6 top selling games on Steam for 2016 where early access titles.
So crowd funding has now been battle tested approved, regardless of SC
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Not going to post it here because it's really long.
This project is already 2 years behind schedule and they haven't even showed the single player game yet. I think we'll be lucky if this game launches before 2020.
Only douchebags would want a game of this scale to fail and @dbag is at the head of that line. Truth is, NO One except the CI dev core really knows what's going on behind closed doors on the game's development or where it's at and if you think CI's transparency is completely out there, you're kidding yourselves. They will still have to reveal fun and exciting things about the game no one saw coming in order to keep things interesting right up to launch day.
Yes, Derek Smart is a polarizing figure, but regardless of what you think about him, he does make valid points. A lot is riding on the success of this game, and if it fails, the failure will bring consequences to the industry. ...
this is no longer true.
There now has been a good number of kickstarter successes, early access successes and as we speak 3 of the 6 top selling games on Steam for 2016 where early access titles.
So crowd funding has now been battle tested approved, regardless of SC
You're right. If this game fails to launch, one of the highest grossing crowdfunded projects of all time and the highest grossing crowdfunded game of all time, absolutely nothing bad will happen to the industry.
I envy your happy-go-lucky attitude and rose-tinted Gunnar's, but I have to hand it to you: I hope you are right.
Yes, Derek Smart is a polarizing figure, but regardless of what you think about him, he does make valid points. A lot is riding on the success of this game, and if it fails, the failure will bring consequences to the industry. ...
this is no longer true.
There now has been a good number of kickstarter successes, early access successes and as we speak 3 of the 6 top selling games on Steam for 2016 where early access titles.
So crowd funding has now been battle tested approved, regardless of SC
You're right. If this game fails to launch, one of the highest grossing crowdfunded projects of all time and the highest grossing crowdfunded game of all time, absolutely nothing bad will happen to the industry.
I envy your happy-go-lucky attitude and rose-tinted Gunnar's, but I have to hand it to you: I hope you are right.
yes that is correct and its correct for the reasons I have stated and I dont really want to state again but I feel like you missed my reasons so i will and I will put it in bold
There now has been a good number of kickstarter successes, early access successes and as we speak 3 of the 6 top selling games on Steam for 2016 where early access titles.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Regardless, I find the continued funding success behind SC of far more interest than the game(s) themselves.
Me too actually. It has been that way for quite a while.
It's like watching a bizarre social experiment that touches on many interesting contemporary topics: social media mob mentality, first world pollyannaish gamer dreams and the affluence that fuels them, public displays of raw game developer jealousy, use and misuse of corporate and defamation legalese... the list goes on.
In this context, as a disinterested observer, DS is the perfect foil for CS.
What about Kerbal Space Program and the currently on going story of 7 days to die.
How about not going all OCD on forum threads and compulsively replying to every post with useless nonsense?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Imagine, just imagine.....if people would donate money to St. Jude's or United Way or Red Cross, the way they've donated all these millions to a "game" that has essentially become a running joke, a reminder of how the herd mentality and social media idiocy have gripped our mostly under-educated populace.....
"We are all as God made us, and many of us much worse." - Don Quixote
Yes, Derek Smart is a polarizing figure, but regardless of what you think about him, he does make valid points. A lot is riding on the success of this game, and if it fails, the failure will bring consequences to the industry. ...
this is no longer true.
There now has been a good number of kickstarter successes, early access successes and as we speak 3 of the 6 top selling games on Steam for 2016 where early access titles.
So crowd funding has now been battle tested approved, regardless of SC
You're right. If this game fails to launch, one of the highest grossing crowdfunded projects of all time and the highest grossing crowdfunded game of all time, absolutely nothing bad will happen to the industry.
I envy your happy-go-lucky attitude and rose-tinted Gunnar's, but I have to hand it to you: I hope you are right.
yes that is correct and its correct for the reasons I have stated and I dont really want to state again but I feel like you missed my reasons so i will and I will put it in bold
There now has been a good number of kickstarter successes, early access successes and as we speak 3 of the 6 top selling games on Steam for 2016 where early access titles.
I was going to launch into a litany of analogous historical examples and a discussion on false dichotomy, but I would be wasting my time.
I admire your unflappable happy-go-lucky attitude.
When SC releases, please let me know if they put $130-140 million into it.
This would be about as impossible to tell as it would be for me to tell you how long the rope of CRs noose was that they strung up for him. Let's not forget that SWTOR cost some $200 million+ to develop, Destiny was around $150 million, soooooooooo if we were to use those as yard sticks, you'd have a difficult time determining what they spent their money on, considering SWTOR sucks (apparently) and Destiny is one of the most shallow games in the history of gaming (apparently). Oh!! And let's not forget about the Yogcast game that spend like half a million dollars on some art assets, never even writing a line of code before it got shit-canned.
Imagine, just imagine.....if people would donate money to St. Jude's or United Way or Red Cross, the way they've donated all these millions to a "game" that has essentially become a running joke, a reminder of how the herd mentality and social media idiocy have gripped our mostly under-educated populace.....
Oh so people who backed Star Citizen are under-educated?
I love the cheap insults leveled at the higher tier backers; who says a person who can afford to spend thousands on a video-game, does not also support charity? Or are the Star Citizen backers all "awful people"? Easy to judge ins't it?
Let's figure why people with money are spending into petty fluff things while people right next to them are going through hunger... >.>
1st world problem. 3rd world problems. But hey let's use the money people spend on video-games as the example like the problem actually lies there.
Imagine, just imagine.....if people would donate money to St. Jude's or United Way or Red Cross, the way they've donated all these millions to a "game" that has essentially become a running joke, a reminder of how the herd mentality and social media idiocy have gripped our mostly under-educated populace.....
Oh so people who backed Star Citizen are under-educate?
I love the cheap insults leveled at the higher tier backers; who says a backer who can afford to spend thousands on a video-game, does not also support charity? Or are these backers all awful people? Easy to judge ins't it?
I guess the problem with the world is Star Citizen and how much people spend on video-games! 5*
I think giving to charity first, then maybe to SC is best. Why? SC won't cure the common cold or cancer, it is just something to play and enjoy. Don't make it out to more than it is. it is a game nothing more.
The backers might be awful people, who knows, I can't say. I won't judge.
I think giving to charity first, then maybe to SC is best.
We will have to go through the mentality of our world, the 1st vs 3rd world problems. I think this has nothing to do with games or anything, it's just the ones who are on the so-called "1st world" can only live with a clean conscience if we pretend that the 3rd one does not exist, or just, well act like it is normal and that some acts of charity is all you we need to feel right about it.
While some take action it's still a big minority; thing is who has the power to actually do a meaningful change is far beyond the reach of us as individuals. The values we were by general rule raised with, our parents, and so forth are of co-existence with both realities.
People assume the figures are real. NO ONE knows if they are or not. Not until there is some sort of independent audit. Which may or may not ever happen.
But the semantics arguments here are laughable. Hillary raised over 2 billion dollars because people who gave her money simply wanted her to be president, not because they were continuing the pay to play practices the Clintons started 35 years ago.
The best test to all this will be if they ever release anything and then see how much money this thing continues to make.
I am also waiting for him to amend his minimal viable product announcement. And that should be something anyone interested in this or giving them money should want to know as well. The simplest question would be "since you made the minimum viable product announcement you have 'raised' another 25 million dollars. Is that amount sufficient to amend your stance of releasing a minimal viable product?"
Imagine, just imagine.....if people would donate money to St. Jude's or United Way or Red Cross, the way they've donated all these millions to a "game" that has essentially become a running joke, a reminder of how the herd mentality and social media idiocy have gripped our mostly under-educated populace.....
Oh so people who backed Star Citizen are under-educated?
I love the cheap insults leveled at the higher tier backers; who says a person who can afford to spend thousands on a video-game, does not also support charity? Or are the Star Citizen backers all "awful people"? Easy to judge ins't it?
Let's figure why people with money are spending into petty fluff things while people right next to them are going through hunger... >.>
1st world problem. 3rd world problems. But hey let's use the money people spend on video-games as the example like the problem actually lies there.
While I'm sure we all think charity is a good idea, the charity argument here is over the top. Essentially, most of everything we do could be compared to charity. Hell, why am I wasting time posting when I could be volunteering at the soup kitchen? Why buy any game or anything outside of the most Spartan of essential needs when it could go to charity?
Rather than call the ethics and intelligence of the backers into question, the question at hand is whether we will see a viable, successful, timely product that is worthy of the support of the backers.
People assume the figures are real. NO ONE knows if they are or not. Not until there is some sort of independent audit. Which may or may not ever happen.
But the semantics arguments here are laughable. Hillary raised over 2 billion dollars because people who gave her money simply wanted her to be president, not because they were continuing the pay to play practices the Clintons started 35 years ago.
The best test to all this will be if they ever release anything and then see how much money this thing continues to make.
I am also waiting for him to amend his minimal viable product announcement. And that should be something anyone interested in this or giving them money should want to know as well. The simplest question would be "since you made the minimum viable product announcement you have 'raised' another 25 million dollars. Is that amount sufficient to amend your stance of releasing a minimal viable product?"
I'd be more interested in knowing what his MVP is. Was that ever stated? I might have missed that. Honestly, my greatest concern with CR is that the MVP is synonymous with the "pie in the sky" idea of what he'd like to see. This is what doomed Freelancer, right? So I think that knowing what the MVP is would be important.
Rhoms said: While I'm sure we all think charity is a good idea, the charity argument here is over the top. Essentially, most of everything we do could be compared to charity. Hell, why am I wasting time posting when I could be volunteering at the soup kitchen? Why buy any game or anything outside of the most Spartan of essential needs when it could go to charity?
Rather than call the ethics and intelligence of the backers into question, the question at hand is whether we will see a viable, successful, timely product that is worthy of the support of the backers.
It's pretty much what you said, I think we are all aware of how things are played by on our society, we were raised to co-exist with both realities and that is pretty much it, for me change comes from who is responsible for the societies we all contribute to continuously build and maintain; and is the failure of that system we should judge, not each other because we're not spending our money helping other person and bought a pair of shiny expensive shoes for example.
As for the last, time will tell. For me I'm confident Star Citizen can easily be a great game to play as it develops further up until it releases, but I think it is healthy to not obsess over dates as we travel through what is the development of this game.
It's like Early Access games on Steam, people these days are more excited for the "next update" rather to "when full release?".
I think when Star Citizen feels more fleshed out, possibly when 3.0 is out people will stop obsess so much about the "full release" and will be looking forward the next update instead.
People assume the figures are real. NO ONE knows if they are or not......
about as relevant of an argument as 'they very well could be funneling money to aliens to build a Trump headed space ship for all we know'
Hyperbole aside. What makes more sense? These guys have a project almost no one talks about anywhere but here. Have disaster after disaster during their live shows. Have had delay after delay. Have a tech demo alpha that is a completely buggy mess. Have followed a plan that a vast majority of players find negative (selling items) along with every other negative issue this game has had over the past 5 years. And despite ALL that they still raise millions upon millions of dollars. While most released games or games with a much better history and much better personal cant raise lunch money. Or theyre lying about the amounts of money coming in?
The 'product' they are sprinkling out here and there in tiny portions backs up what I think.
Comments
And then we're somehow supposed to take it seriously and eat it up; man... not even trying! Aliens! If you can hear me, please take me with you!!!!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
therefore ANYTHING is possible, including aliens owning Kickstarter for decades ....
I know which one I would prefer.
Have fun
PS:
Have to go back and play SC Alpha 2.6 to take my mind off that scary thought.
No ... not the one about the aliens ....
'I will drain the swamp except that I never said that so I will not do it'
yeah sounds about right
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
On a positive note, I hope this situation encourages quality crowdfunding companies to be more transparent with their idea, game, and company, and I hope it encourages companies to have robust lines of communication with backers, potential backers, and fans.
Current game: Pillars of Eternity
Played: UO, AC, Eve, Fallen Earth, Aion, GW, GW2
Tried: WOW, Rift, SWTOR, ESO
Future: Camelot Unchained? Crowfall? Bless?
There now has been a good number of kickstarter successes, early access successes and as we speak 3 of the 6 top selling games on Steam for 2016 where early access titles.
So crowd funding has now been battle tested approved, regardless of SC
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I envy your happy-go-lucky attitude and rose-tinted Gunnar's, but I have to hand it to you: I hope you are right.
Current game: Pillars of Eternity
Played: UO, AC, Eve, Fallen Earth, Aion, GW, GW2
Tried: WOW, Rift, SWTOR, ESO
Future: Camelot Unchained? Crowfall? Bless?
There now has been a good number of kickstarter successes, early access successes and as we speak 3 of the 6 top selling games on Steam for 2016 where early access titles.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I admire your unflappable happy-go-lucky attitude.
Current game: Pillars of Eternity
Played: UO, AC, Eve, Fallen Earth, Aion, GW, GW2
Tried: WOW, Rift, SWTOR, ESO
Future: Camelot Unchained? Crowfall? Bless?
This would be about as impossible to tell as it would be for me to tell you how long the rope of CRs noose was that they strung up for him. Let's not forget that SWTOR cost some $200 million+ to develop, Destiny was around $150 million, soooooooooo if we were to use those as yard sticks, you'd have a difficult time determining what they spent their money on, considering SWTOR sucks (apparently) and Destiny is one of the most shallow games in the history of gaming (apparently). Oh!! And let's not forget about the Yogcast game that spend like half a million dollars on some art assets, never even writing a line of code before it got shit-canned.
Just sayin'!
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
----------------
I love the cheap insults leveled at the higher tier backers; who says a person who can afford to spend thousands on a video-game, does not also support charity? Or are the Star Citizen backers all "awful people"? Easy to judge ins't it?
Let's figure why people with money are spending into petty fluff things while people right next to them are going through hunger... >.>
1st world problem. 3rd world problems. But hey let's use the money people spend on video-games as the example like the problem actually lies there.
I think giving to charity first, then maybe to SC is best. Why? SC won't cure the common cold or cancer, it is just something to play and enjoy. Don't make it out to more than it is. it is a game nothing more.
The backers might be awful people, who knows, I can't say. I won't judge.
While some take action it's still a big minority; thing is who has the power to actually do a meaningful change is far beyond the reach of us as individuals. The values we were by general rule raised with, our parents, and so forth are of co-existence with both realities.
But the semantics arguments here are laughable. Hillary raised over 2 billion dollars because people who gave her money simply wanted her to be president, not because they were continuing the pay to play practices the Clintons started 35 years ago.
The best test to all this will be if they ever release anything and then see how much money this thing continues to make.
I am also waiting for him to amend his minimal viable product announcement. And that should be something anyone interested in this or giving them money should want to know as well. The simplest question would be "since you made the minimum viable product announcement you have 'raised' another 25 million dollars. Is that amount sufficient to amend your stance of releasing a minimal viable product?"
Rather than call the ethics and intelligence of the backers into question, the question at hand is whether we will see a viable, successful, timely product that is worthy of the support of the backers.
Current game: Pillars of Eternity
Played: UO, AC, Eve, Fallen Earth, Aion, GW, GW2
Tried: WOW, Rift, SWTOR, ESO
Future: Camelot Unchained? Crowfall? Bless?
I'd be more interested in knowing what his MVP is. Was that ever stated? I might have missed that. Honestly, my greatest concern with CR is that the MVP is synonymous with the "pie in the sky" idea of what he'd like to see. This is what doomed Freelancer, right? So I think that knowing what the MVP is would be important.
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
----------------
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As for the last, time will tell. For me I'm confident Star Citizen can easily be a great game to play as it develops further up until it releases, but I think it is healthy to not obsess over dates as we travel through what is the development of this game.
It's like Early Access games on Steam, people these days are more excited for the "next update" rather to "when full release?".
I think when Star Citizen feels more fleshed out, possibly when 3.0 is out people will stop obsess so much about the "full release" and will be looking forward the next update instead.
The 'product' they are sprinkling out here and there in tiny portions backs up what I think.