It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
You get it wrong. It is the other way around.MadFrenchie said:There's the carte blanche that all crowdfunding developers want to persuade their backers to: as much money as it takes for as long as it takes.
Phaserlight said:Why does the Wikipedia page for CIG list 2010 as the founding date? Because this is when the parent company, Roberts Space Industries was founded (hard to keep track of all the companies surrounding this). Are you suggesting Chris set up this company with nothing to do?Orinori said:If you had actually read the information in the pages for the link i sent you would know that the company was set up in April 2012 something a quick search would easily clarify for you from a legal perspective. You would also see that the kickstarter was October 2012. The people CR talks about helping him were hired to help set up that kick starter in Oct 2012, I will assume the company was set up for tax reasons when paying those people. Like I have said, your assumption that Chris Roberts paid 10 professional people to work for him from 2011 until Oct 2012 out of his own pocket (into the millions) for a kickstarter page and a short video is comical to me.Phaserlight said:All right, so six years. Mea culpa. The exact date Chris began working on Star Citizen is less important to me than the budget overruns. However, he has been quoted multiple times saying work on Star Citizen began in 2011 and he founded his company CIG that year as well. It's not really an "obscure" quote. It seems to be a bigger issue to you than it is to me; I acknowledge I should have said 6, not 7.
I'm also not sure where you are getting "boundaries, cut scenes, invisible walls..."; I don't think that was ever a part of the Kickstarter pitch, but it may have been a factor of technical limitations they ran into along the way.
Isn't it a fact that the number of planets and star systems to be included at launch has been greatly reduced?
It is clear, work began in earnest with a small group in April 2012. Taking into account Chris Roberts own work on the project prior to that to make some statement about how long the project has been going on is nothing short of idiotic propaganda, as now we might as well state the project has been going on since he was in his early 20's.
So when all evidence is gathered and analysed you should have said 5 years, the same age as the company. They just celebrated their 5th anniversary, were they lying? lol. Turns out you don't have to be much of a detective and can follow official information and not weaponised out of context quotes twisted to mean what ever we want them to mean.
"I'm also not sure where you are getting "boundaries, cut scenes, invisible walls..."; I don't think that was ever a part of the Kickstarter pitch"
Well I guess that would be the difference between knowing what you are talking about and just throwing mud at CIG and hoping something sticks.
Doesn't it stand to reason that when Chris launched the crowd funding campaign for Star Citizen he must have had some time to work up something to demo in the pitch? Are you saying he discarded this work or that it does not count as a part of the Star Citizen project (it seems rather sheisty to sell people on something you have no intention of delivering as a final product)?
I have now seen 2012, 2011, and 2010 listed as founding years for CIG. I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Back on the topic of budget:
If you doubt $20 million is enough to implement seamless space to surface gameplay, here is a company doing it on a shoestring in 2010:
What does Roberts need all those extra millions for? Network code?
Care to elaborate ?xNIAx1 said:Star Citizen = Fraud
You "know a guy".penandpaper said:Are people still falling for this? Before you doubt me, please please please check my record. I simply state things I see. No bias. I love games. Most. (Don't have enough time to play many, but I like following them.) But, this...
I can personally state that "I know a guy." I'm sure many on this website do, as it seems to be a well researched and connected site. The entire thing is a sham. It's offering the sun and going to give a candle. Not only that, but the lead developers have a track record of nothing but shadiness; real shadiness, not pseudo: (was going to list them, like hookers, but I just can't. It's all there for anyone that cares to listen to people who, in the past, have worked with them.)
I cannot believe that the intelligent people of this site still are falling for this. I can't. The people on this site know argument: ethos, pathos, logos, rhetoric, fallacies, etc. Yet...
Sorry for the rant, but it's just hard to understand.