Blizzard offered a game. SC offers a promise of a game.
SC offered and delivered inclusion and participation in the game at every stage that they could / can. Many playing 3,0 right this second.
Look at the figures again. get some perspective and stop the faux outrage.
Yeah, they offer an alpha version of the game. And like you said, they are making $30 million per year on it even though it has extreme bugs and is underwhelming. That is what makes it so impressive.
What makes WoW impressive is that it made an incredible amount of money after people were able to actually see the game. SC would be lucky to even come within 1% of Blizzards success. All games would be lucky to have WoW success. And as you point out, SC is so far below WoW as to barely be noticeable in comparison.
And what is disturbing about your post is that you are asking me to get perspective for a game that has raised, by far, the most money raised through crowdfunding ever. It is beginning to approach one of the highest funded games of all time, period. And they continue to find ways to extract consumer's money (be they whales or small timers like you).
It is truly impressive.
All this post states is that you are against Crowdfunding. Period. There is little room for further interpretation.
Your beef is that they gain money for and during development from it's customers. Once it is 'launched' it can take in billions and that's just fine for you. But people trying to fundraise for that game? NOT ALLOWED! become highest funded game of all time through crowdfunding? NOT ALLOWED!
Well, the post doesn't ONLY say I'm against crowdfunding. Fundamentally, I want proper oversight for crowdfunding, true. And this company does not have that. Worse, people are still buying in at an incredible rate despite the warning signs.
Like I've said before, it's the model that disturbs me and it is the irrational actions of consumers I find interesting. But when it comes down to the very basics of what bothers me, it is definitely the methods that CIG uses to extract money from consumers that I find unethical in general. The promises they never keep but raise money on.
My problem specifically (and I do have one) has to do with the way they present the experience compared to the extreme expectations. It is already a P2W game - a fact I don't think most people that bought in would agree with. And even more than that... it's just a game. They are overly vague about extremely important systems. They raise money without specifics. These are the things that disturb me about their model. The selling of land is just another example of that. Credits and ships were enough for me to be extremely skeptical. Adding land to the mix to raise money for this year, without having a system in place or offering solid specifics was very dark to me, I will admit.
I think it's strange that some people would spend thousands of dollars on a game that's still in alpha. I also think it's strange that they would say nothing about spending say, hundreds of dollars on a ship that hasn't been delivered for many years, let alone buying several. Now people are buying claims for land that can't be claimed yet, just like some of the ships and some people are OK with that.
There's also the P2W argument but every company that has P2W denies it and so do their core backers. So I'm not really surprised that most backers think SC is not P2W even though I can start the game owning a fleet of ships, high end weapons and gear, and now land claims (but that doesn't give me an advantage because all that stuff can be earned ingame, just like the stuff in the EA loot boxes can be earned ingame, but that's P2W because it's random).
I believe in the middle ground and see things I like about the game and some things I don't like. It's never black or white as every game has positives and negatives.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Blizzard offered a game. SC offers a promise of a game.
SC offered and delivered inclusion and participation in the game at every stage that they could / can. Many playing 3,0 right this second.
Look at the figures again. get some perspective and stop the faux outrage.
Yeah, they offer an alpha version of the game. And like you said, they are making $30 million per year on it even though it has extreme bugs and is underwhelming. That is what makes it so impressive.
What makes WoW impressive is that it made an incredible amount of money after people were able to actually see the game. SC would be lucky to even come within 1% of Blizzards success. All games would be lucky to have WoW success. And as you point out, SC is so far below WoW as to barely be noticeable in comparison.
And what is disturbing about your post is that you are asking me to get perspective for a game that has raised, by far, the most money raised through crowdfunding ever. It is beginning to approach one of the highest funded games of all time, period. And they continue to find ways to extract consumer's money (be they whales or small timers like you).
It is truly impressive.
All this post states is that you are against Crowdfunding. Period. There is little room for further interpretation.
Your beef is that they gain money for and during development from it's customers. Once it is 'launched' it can take in billions and that's just fine for you. But people trying to fundraise for that game? NOT ALLOWED! become highest funded game of all time through crowdfunding? NOT ALLOWED!
Well, the post doesn't ONLY say I'm against crowdfunding. Fundamentally, I want proper oversight for crowdfunding, true. And this company does not have that. Worse, people are still buying in at an incredible rate despite the warning signs.
Like I've said before, it's the model that disturbs me and it is the irrational actions of consumers I find interesting. But when it comes down to the very basics of what bothers me, it is definitely the methods that CIG uses to extract money from consumers that I find unethical in general. The promises they never keep but raise money on.
My problem specifically (and I do have one) has to do with the way they present the experience compared to the extreme expectations. It is already a P2W game - a fact I don't think most people that bought in would agree with. And even more than that... it's just a game. They are overly vague about extremely important systems. They raise money without specifics. These are the things that disturb me about their model. The selling of land is just another example of that. Credits and ships were enough for me to be extremely skeptical. Adding land to the mix to raise money for this year, without having a system in place or offering solid specifics was very dark to me, I will admit.
It seems a reasonable and cautious view, but lets keep in mind the figures we talked about. The average backer has paid only $16 a year over the course of development. It's not a big deal.
So far I am getting pretty much exactly what I expected for my money besides the fact it has taken a bit longer than hoped.
I don't know if I support 'proper oversight' for crowdfunding. It sounds expensive. It is pretty clear all ready. Don't do anything illegal. But I have never been one to support bureaucracy and red tape.
Well, "don't do anything illegal" applies to murder as well. Why have oversight if people can just not murder?
Is someone keeping oversight of you right now making sure you don't commit murder? I am hoping not, otherwise this could be the end of this conversation.
Edit: is that a straight jacket on the avatar? I am starting to worry now.
Well, "don't do anything illegal" applies to murder as well. Why have oversight if people can just not murder?
Is someone keeping oversight of you right now making sure you don't commit murder? I am hoping not, otherwise this could be the end of this conversation.
Edit: is that a straight jacket on the avatar? I am starting to worry now.
They are puppies.
Financial oversight on crowdfunding isn't a new idea. "Don't do anything illegal" as you put it is wishful thinking from a broad perspective. I would prefer that crowdfunding had the same oversight that any major financial party has. And I tend to be for extremely limited regulation.
I think it's strange that some people would spend thousands of dollars on a game that's still in alpha. I also think it's strange that they would say nothing about spending say, hundreds of dollars on a ship that hasn't been delivered for many years, let alone buying several. Now people are buying claims for land that can't be claimed yet, just like some of the ships and some people are OK with that.
There's also the P2W argument but every company that has P2W denies it and so do their core backers. So I'm not really surprised that most backers think SC is not P2W even though I can start the game owning a fleet of ships, high end weapons and gear, and now land claims (but that doesn't give me an advantage because all that stuff can be earned ingame, just like the stuff in the EA loot boxes can be earned ingame, but that's P2W because it's random).
I believe in the middle ground and see things I like about the game and some things I don't like. It's never black or white as every game has positives and negatives.
The only strange thing is people pretend they care about other people's money. It's like that mixture of bitcoin trolls who are still confused, oblivious and somewhat envious of how in the hell are so many people making money from virtual currency. That lack of understanding and feeling of being on the "outside" of the buzzfrenzy around it causes them to feel like an outcast, that causes frustration, that's why they feel good (relieved) at the idea of it collapsing, because then it would end the frustration.
The whole core aspect of crowdfunding is putting money up front for something that doesn't exist, if it's a couple of dollars or a couple of millions it's irrelevant as different people/country's have different financial ceilings.
The main reason Star Citizen gets picked on is because it's the biggest ans most visible project of this nature while it's only doing what others have done but in a much more efficient and productive way.
I think any random casual gamer seeing it develop from the sidelines has reasons to be intrigued to see a game so ambitious being attempted and that there's a big community of fans taking the risk of funding it to make it happen. If it fails they lose nothing if it develops they get a game to play.
The ones that are not interested in seeing Star Citizen come to life usually have a very deep personal axe to grind against Chris Roberts, CIG, it's staff and/or crowdfunding in general due to some deep and obscure emotional flaw/attachment issue, most likely something related with childhood/teen unresolved frustrations.
I don't care about other people's money. However, I would like an admission that this game is P2W by the developers. I want transparency. I am disturbed by how much they lie about things in order to raise money.
You say that, "The ones that are not interested in seeing Star Citizen come to life usually have a very deep personal axe to grind against Chris Roberts, CIG, it's staff and/or crowdfunding in general due to some deep and obscure emotional flaw/attachment issue, most likely something related with childhood/teen unresolved frustrations."
I can only assume you are talking about me or others like me. That might be the most insulting thing I have ever read and seriously misguided in my opinion. It really is just an insult.
I don't care about other people's money. However, I would like an admission that this game is P2W by the developers. I want transparency. I am disturbed by how much they lie about things in order to raise money.
You say that, "The ones that are not interested in seeing Star Citizen come to life usually have a very deep personal axe to grind against Chris Roberts, CIG, it's staff and/or crowdfunding in general due to some deep and obscure emotional flaw/attachment issue, most likely something related with childhood/teen unresolved frustrations."
I can only assume you are talking about me or others like me. That might be the most insulting thing I have ever read and seriously misguided in my opinion. It really is just an insult.
Every game is pay to win considering the perspective. If you pay more for your computer you get better conditions than the low pc gamer, if for you "win" is to collect everything ingame and you can't access cosmetics in the store so "no win" for you. If you play with one account and other's will play with 3 or 4 how do you stop that?
Raising funds by pre-selling upfront is a kickstart/crowdfunding core element, a necessity. CIG is doing not 1 but 2 ambitious games at the same time, if you think 200$millions is enough you are naive.
And no I clearly wasn't talking about "you or other's like you" as It's the first time I've seen you engage in the Star Citizen thread.
I don't care about other people's money. However, I would like an admission that this game is P2W by the developers. I want transparency. I am disturbed by how much they lie about things in order to raise money.
You say that, "The ones that are not interested in seeing Star Citizen come to life usually have a very deep personal axe to grind against Chris Roberts, CIG, it's staff and/or crowdfunding in general due to some deep and obscure emotional flaw/attachment issue, most likely something related with childhood/teen unresolved frustrations."
I can only assume you are talking about me or others like me. That might be the most insulting thing I have ever read and seriously misguided in my opinion. It really is just an insult.
Every game is pay to win considering the perspective. If you pay more for your computer you get better conditions than the low pc gamer, if for you "win" is to collect everything ingame and you can't access cosmetics in the store so "no win" for you. If you play with one account and other's will play with 3 or 4 how do you stop that?
Raising funds by pre-selling upfront is a kickstart/crowdfunding core element, a necessity. CIG is doing not 1 but 2 ambitious games at the same time, if you think 200$millions is enough you are naive.
And no I clearly wasn't talking about "you or other's like you" as It's the first time I've seen you engage in the Star Citizen thread.
You know the fans have jumped the shark when they equate buying a new computer/paying more for a computer as P2W for a game when trying to defend it.
If it troubles you the idea that others might have an advantage over you when gaming because of their $ you should probably stick to playing chess or ping pong maybe...
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I don't care about other people's money. However, I would like an admission that this game is P2W by the developers. I want transparency. I am disturbed by how much they lie about things in order to raise money.
You say that, "The ones that are not interested in seeing Star Citizen come to life usually have a very deep personal axe to grind against Chris Roberts, CIG, it's staff and/or crowdfunding in general due to some deep and obscure emotional flaw/attachment issue, most likely something related with childhood/teen unresolved frustrations."
I can only assume you are talking about me or others like me. That might be the most insulting thing I have ever read and seriously misguided in my opinion. It really is just an insult.
Every game is pay to win considering the perspective. If you pay more for your computer you get better conditions than the low pc gamer, if for you "win" is to collect everything ingame and you can't access cosmetics in the store so "no win" for you. If you play with one account and other's will play with 3 or 4 how do you stop that?
Raising funds by pre-selling upfront is a kickstart/crowdfunding core element, a necessity. CIG is doing not 1 but 2 ambitious games at the same time, if you think 200$millions is enough you are naive.
And no I clearly wasn't talking about "you or other's like you" as It's the first time I've seen you engage in the Star Citizen thread.
LMAO people comparing WOW to SC, cant make that up.
Thats like comparing Gone With the Wind to some Adam Sandler movie that never got made....
People will say ANYTHING to defend this nonsense.
Its EXTREMELY simple for anyone with common sense to understand. They should have made and delivered SOMETHING, but they havent. People can invent and list all the excuses they want to but bottomline is they have had 5 or 6 (depending on who you want to believe) years to put out a game. THEN added to it after it was released. But nope they soon realized they could make 30 million a year with fake movies and empty promises. And putting out a broken and buggy tech demo every 12 months.
There woudlnt be NEARLY the criticism (or money probably) had they put out something 2 years ago. They would at least had shown the ability top actually deliver something playable. Something they havent done because 3.0 is definitely not retail release worthy by a mile.
People are so deluded they think 3.0 is some massive leap forward. Its a nothing its not even a part of a nothing. And what there is is a laggy broken mess. Almost zero persistence no 'stuff' to do but maybe 4 or 5 missions and those are broken, ride around on empty planets on a bunch of pixels you paid a few hundred busk for. Sorry folks thats not a game, its barely a simulator.
But people have convinced themselves (because the bar has been lowered so far) that this is some break through. Its laughably sad, they dont even have the core features worked out let alone implementing game play mechanics.
Watch any stream and you can see everything thing its lacking even when guys purposely avoid things they know are broken. Its been out a month now almost and despite numerous patches it hasnt improved enough to even register, in fact many people have seen worse performance after the updates.
yeah I know I know I am a hater. No I just have eyes and a brain and know this thing isnt close to being ready even if it had someone competent in charge, with the clowns they have running the circus its likely never to get made even if people continue to send them 30-35 million a year. And it doesnt look like theyre going to make 35 this year, theyre at 33 right now with 21 days to go. Despite 3.0 coming out and them selling land and every ship they ever drew a picture of going on sale. The holiday sale made just over 8 million, pathetic considering last year and what they offered this year.
And we all know or should know that if the money stops this thing doesnt advance another step.
But I am sure in a week or whenever they have their holiday firesale they will reveal more crap that they are dreaming about in some homemade movie and tell people its going to be so awesome in the game, the same game that they have added a dozen or more things to during every convention that still havent been added to any working model.
Its OK to dream but sooner or later reality has to set in.
Blizzard offered a game. SC offers a promise of a game.
SC offered and delivered inclusion and participation in the game at every stage that they could / can. Many playing 3,0 right this second.
Look at the figures again. get some perspective and stop the faux outrage.
Yeah, they offer an alpha version of the game. And like you said, they are making $30 million per year on it even though it has extreme bugs and is underwhelming. That is what makes it so impressive.
What makes WoW impressive is that it made an incredible amount of money after people were able to actually see the game. SC would be lucky to even come within 1% of Blizzards success. All games would be lucky to have WoW success. And as you point out, SC is so far below WoW as to barely be noticeable in comparison.
And what is disturbing about your post is that you are asking me to get perspective for a game that has raised, by far, the most money raised through crowdfunding ever. It is beginning to approach one of the highest funded games of all time, period. And they continue to find ways to extract consumer's money (be they whales or small timers like you).
It is truly impressive.
All this post states is that you are against Crowdfunding. Period. There is little room for further interpretation.
Your beef is that they gain money for and during development from it's customers. Once it is 'launched' it can take in billions and that's just fine for you. But people trying to fundraise for that game? NOT ALLOWED! become highest funded game of all time through crowdfunding? NOT ALLOWED!
Well, the post doesn't ONLY say I'm against crowdfunding. Fundamentally, I want proper oversight for crowdfunding, true. And this company does not have that. Worse, people are still buying in at an incredible rate despite the warning signs.
Like I've said before, it's the model that disturbs me and it is the irrational actions of consumers I find interesting. But when it comes down to the very basics of what bothers me, it is definitely the methods that CIG uses to extract money from consumers that I find unethical in general. The promises they never keep but raise money on.
My problem specifically (and I do have one) has to do with the way they present the experience compared to the extreme expectations. It is already a P2W game - a fact I don't think most people that bought in would agree with. And even more than that... it's just a game. They are overly vague about extremely important systems. They raise money without specifics. These are the things that disturb me about their model. The selling of land is just another example of that. Credits and ships were enough for me to be extremely skeptical. Adding land to the mix to raise money for this year, without having a system in place or offering solid specifics was very dark to me, I will admit.
It seems a reasonable and cautious view, but lets keep in mind the figures we talked about. The average backer has paid only $16 a year over the course of development. It's not a big deal.
So far I am getting pretty much exactly what I expected for my money besides the fact it has taken a bit longer than hoped.
I don't know if I support 'proper oversight' for crowdfunding. It sounds expensive. It is pretty clear all ready. Don't do anything illegal. But I have never been one to support bureaucracy and red tape.
seriously? So if it takes 20 years the average backer paid only 4 dollars a year? How is that even an argument?
Yes I think they said the average is in the $60 range, the question still stands for them also. What is so amazing.
Last time I read about it, it was over $80/person. I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with that. I mean, I think it's stupid to spend money even on preorders in general, much less a game that may or may not even see the light of day. Like I already said, you are a far below average consumer, spending around 40% of average.
It's $89 per person at the moment, and that's counting in everyone who have tested the trial without paying anything into the average.
The only reason it causes so much grief to the usual's is because it's CIG/Star Citizen.
Anything that makes them money is preventing the "Total Collapse 90 Days
Top" prophecy to be fulfilled therefore it's evil lol
How much money total do you think WoW collected from its customers in it's hay day per year?
If it troubles you the idea that others might have an advantage
over you when gaming because of their $ you should probably stick to
playing chess or ping pong maybe...
The thread title is wrong. There is nothing "micro" about many of those transactions. "Buy this for $100" is not a "micro" transaction.
Yep, have already pointed out that the article is fake news. No way Star Citizen should be in that list. They do actually have micro transactions in SC, but it is not this land stuff. Stupid fake news hit piece!
its not fake news you retard,did you learn a new word yesterday fake news,lol.
The thread title is wrong. There is nothing "micro" about many of those transactions. "Buy this for $100" is not a "micro" transaction.
Yep, have already pointed out that the article is fake news. No way Star Citizen should be in that list. They do actually have micro transactions in SC, but it is not this land stuff. Stupid fake news hit piece!
its not fake news you retard,did you learn a new word yesterday fake news,lol.
When you have games that actively encourage gambling by the players and preys on children in the process, it is kind of hard to see the PCGamer article as anything other than fake news, were they bought out by CNN or something?
"You can pay $50 to $100
for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet
thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a
4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need
a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you
protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for
messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your
plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist
yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon
and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
"You can pay $50 to $100
for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet
thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a
4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need
a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you
protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for
messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your
plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist
yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon
and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
Still doesn't encourage gambling or prey upon children, they are selling things that will eventually be in the game and are advertised as such, in that sense they are totally transparent in what they are doing, as opposed to loot box microtransations etc that you find in EA games and lately in Destiny 2 etc. which are by far a lot worse and are not transparent at all after all didn't Bungie throttle the xp gains from players in order to try and get them to make more microtransactions? and that only got changed when they were called out on it. Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it.
"You can pay $50 to $100
for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet
thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a
4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need
a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you
protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for
messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your
plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist
yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon
and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
Still doesn't encourage gambling or prey upon children, they are selling things that will eventually be in the game and are advertised as such, in that sense they are totally transparent in what they are doing, as opposed to loot box microtransations etc that you find in EA games and lately in Destiny 2 etc. which are by far a lot worse and are not transparent at all after all didn't Bungie throttle the xp gains from players in order to try and get them to make more microtransactions? and that only got changed when they were called out on it. Sorry, but while i might not be a fan of SC it is by no means the worst offender there is, far from it.
Apples and oranges.
Star Citizen is rather unique in its approach. Whether or not it deserves a spot in the article is somewhat irrelevant. It is noteworthy.
As others in this thread have noted, you can only hope the things they are selling will one day be in the game. People have paid thousands (let alone hundreds) of dollars for ships that are still not in the game, years later.
It's an "offender" (if you want to call it that) in an entirely different way.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Comments
Like I've said before, it's the model that disturbs me and it is the irrational actions of consumers I find interesting. But when it comes down to the very basics of what bothers me, it is definitely the methods that CIG uses to extract money from consumers that I find unethical in general. The promises they never keep but raise money on.
My problem specifically (and I do have one) has to do with the way they present the experience compared to the extreme expectations. It is already a P2W game - a fact I don't think most people that bought in would agree with. And even more than that... it's just a game. They are overly vague about extremely important systems. They raise money without specifics. These are the things that disturb me about their model. The selling of land is just another example of that. Credits and ships were enough for me to be extremely skeptical. Adding land to the mix to raise money for this year, without having a system in place or offering solid specifics was very dark to me, I will admit.
There's also the P2W argument but every company that has P2W denies it and so do their core backers. So I'm not really surprised that most backers think SC is not P2W even though I can start the game owning a fleet of ships, high end weapons and gear, and now land claims (but that doesn't give me an advantage because all that stuff can be earned ingame, just like the stuff in the EA loot boxes can be earned ingame, but that's P2W because it's random).
I believe in the middle ground and see things I like about the game and some things I don't like. It's never black or white as every game has positives and negatives.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
So far I am getting pretty much exactly what I expected for my money besides the fact it has taken a bit longer than hoped.
I don't know if I support 'proper oversight' for crowdfunding. It sounds expensive. It is pretty clear all ready. Don't do anything illegal. But I have never been one to support bureaucracy and red tape.
Edit: is that a straight jacket on the avatar? I am starting to worry now.
Good job Star Citizen number 1 on the PC Gamer microtransaction list. Must be proud.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Financial oversight on crowdfunding isn't a new idea. "Don't do anything illegal" as you put it is wishful thinking from a broad perspective. I would prefer that crowdfunding had the same oversight that any major financial party has. And I tend to be for extremely limited regulation.
The whole core aspect of crowdfunding is putting money up front for something that doesn't exist, if it's a couple of dollars or a couple of millions it's irrelevant as different people/country's have different financial ceilings.
The main reason Star Citizen gets picked on is because it's the biggest ans most visible project of this nature while it's only doing what others have done but in a much more efficient and productive way.
I think any random casual gamer seeing it develop from the sidelines has reasons to be intrigued to see a game so ambitious being attempted and that there's a big community of fans taking the risk of funding it to make it happen. If it fails they lose nothing if it develops they get a game to play.
The ones that are not interested in seeing Star Citizen come to life usually have a very deep personal axe to grind against Chris Roberts, CIG, it's staff and/or crowdfunding in general due to some deep and obscure emotional flaw/attachment issue, most likely something related with childhood/teen unresolved frustrations.
You say that, "The ones that are not interested in seeing Star Citizen come to life usually have a very deep personal axe to grind against Chris Roberts, CIG, it's staff and/or crowdfunding in general due to some deep and obscure emotional flaw/attachment issue, most likely something related with childhood/teen unresolved frustrations."
I can only assume you are talking about me or others like me. That might be the most insulting thing I have ever read and seriously misguided in my opinion. It really is just an insult.
Raising funds by pre-selling upfront is a kickstart/crowdfunding core element, a necessity. CIG is doing not 1 but 2 ambitious games at the same time, if you think 200$millions is enough you are naive.
And no I clearly wasn't talking about "you or other's like you" as It's the first time I've seen you engage in the Star Citizen thread.
You know the fans have jumped the shark when they equate buying a new computer/paying more for a computer as P2W for a game when trying to defend it.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Thats like comparing Gone With the Wind to some Adam Sandler movie that never got made....
People will say ANYTHING to defend this nonsense.
Its EXTREMELY simple for anyone with common sense to understand. They should have made and delivered SOMETHING, but they havent. People can invent and list all the excuses they want to but bottomline is they have had 5 or 6 (depending on who you want to believe) years to put out a game. THEN added to it after it was released. But nope they soon realized they could make 30 million a year with fake movies and empty promises. And putting out a broken and buggy tech demo every 12 months.
There woudlnt be NEARLY the criticism (or money probably) had they put out something 2 years ago. They would at least had shown the ability top actually deliver something playable. Something they havent done because 3.0 is definitely not retail release worthy by a mile.
People are so deluded they think 3.0 is some massive leap forward. Its a nothing its not even a part of a nothing. And what there is is a laggy broken mess. Almost zero persistence no 'stuff' to do but maybe 4 or 5 missions and those are broken, ride around on empty planets on a bunch of pixels you paid a few hundred busk for. Sorry folks thats not a game, its barely a simulator.
But people have convinced themselves (because the bar has been lowered so far) that this is some break through. Its laughably sad, they dont even have the core features worked out let alone implementing game play mechanics.
Watch any stream and you can see everything thing its lacking even when guys purposely avoid things they know are broken. Its been out a month now almost and despite numerous patches it hasnt improved enough to even register, in fact many people have seen worse performance after the updates.
yeah I know I know I am a hater. No I just have eyes and a brain and know this thing isnt close to being ready even if it had someone competent in charge, with the clowns they have running the circus its likely never to get made even if people continue to send them 30-35 million a year. And it doesnt look like theyre going to make 35 this year, theyre at 33 right now with 21 days to go. Despite 3.0 coming out and them selling land and every ship they ever drew a picture of going on sale. The holiday sale made just over 8 million, pathetic considering last year and what they offered this year.
And we all know or should know that if the money stops this thing doesnt advance another step.
But I am sure in a week or whenever they have their holiday firesale they will reveal more crap that they are dreaming about in some homemade movie and tell people its going to be so awesome in the game, the same game that they have added a dozen or more things to during every convention that still havent been added to any working model.
Its OK to dream but sooner or later reality has to set in.
huh? Most competitive games are in no way P2W.
What a crummy excuse
"You can pay $50 to $100 for a claim to a plot of virtual land in a game that isn't out yet thanks to Star Citizen's land purchasing system that lets you secure a 4km x 4km "lot" or an 8km x 8km "estate" for your outlay. You don't need a land license to build in Star Citizen, but owning the land offers you protection against vandals, who will be committing an in-game crime for messing around with your private property. You can't choose where your plot goes yet, because Star Citizen's planned universe doesn't exist yet, but in the meantime you can look at a picture of a patch of Moon and dream."
Quote from the article is what Star Citizen is doing.
Sorry to break it to you but this is real.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/16292-Q-A-Land-Claim-License/
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Star Citizen is rather unique in its approach. Whether or not it deserves a spot in the article is somewhat irrelevant. It is noteworthy.
As others in this thread have noted, you can only hope the things they are selling will one day be in the game. People have paid thousands (let alone hundreds) of dollars for ships that are still not in the game, years later.
It's an "offender" (if you want to call it that) in an entirely different way.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance