It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Phaserlight said:Well, it's true. Calling it "obsolete" doesn't change the fact that Roberts initially estimated November 2014 as the time when the completed Star Citizen would be available to purchase when he initially garnered interest for his project.Erillion said:Original ESTIMATED launch date was November 2014.Phaserlight said:Original launch ETA was November 2014. You don't get to call it an original launch ETA after moving the goalposts umpteen times.
And it was already obsolete by the end of the Kickstarter campaign, when all the stretch goals were added and the call to the backers went out to dramatically increase the scope of the game.
And the backers voted: directly with "AYE" and indirectly (and even more dramatically) with their wallets. The backers even voted TWICE with an "AYE" - and after the second time CIG apologized and told them they had to stop adding stretch goals then and there (the backers wanted even more).
But you knew all that already.
And still repeat that obsolete "November 2014" date like a mantra ;-)
I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way. However, because his community encouraged SC off the rails causing it to take the path it did is even more reason in my mind to remember what was initially promised.
I agree it will take as long as it takes, but this project is 3 years late, not 10 months.
One guy from the evocati, not the evocati as a collective.MaxBacon said:I don't, your polarization isn't reasonable when we've been getting both the positives and negatives from the ETF themselves, something you know very well you posted about it before, comparing those people to the level of DS on your post with your "polar opposites" argument, no "I agree" from my side.rpmcmurphy said:Ok Max. That seems like a lot of words when you could have simply said "I agree."