Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Star Citizen Anniversary Sale

1235

Comments

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Kyleran said:
    But where does the scope creep end?  Is it a never ending cycle of the more they raise, the more scope they'll add, and the further out the release date goes for a playable game.

    What is the actual vision.  Time to lock scope, set hard dates, stop pushing for more money and deliver something of value.

    Continuing to market endlessly while delivering little calls into question what all the money is for.


    As much as I am pro crowdfunding, I am against running ongoing campaigns.

    It's fine to add stretch goals, but only if you have mentioned them in your original campaign. It's true I'm not your customer yet - but I am donating to your vision anyhow, I need to know the whole plan right from the beginning. 
    Campaign should run a course (30-90 days) under a legitimate platform, then ends. If developers want to broaden their vision later they should do it at a certain milestone - like deliver the alpha first then be able to run another campaign on that very same platform again. 

    Setting up shop on one's site and selling stuff is not crowdfunding anymore. 



    SC is only guilty of being successful with the model. This isn't, by far, an isolated incident. Eastern MMORPGs have adopted this type of funding for a while now. 

    Basically it boils down to who is anyone to say how a campaign like this is run. Some don't agree with it, and I get that but, ultimately, it's the decision of the backer to put their money into it. Stretch Goals were mentioned. They've opened up to refunds, now. So it's actually quite transparent compared to plenty of projects. The fact it's been open for business since the beginning of development is a point of contention, but I don't think it's a mystery to anyone what they're doing. Of course they're funding. However, anyone who thinks it's not a race, too, is foolish. Funding has dropped below their burn, so it's crunch time. 

    I could care less either way and I'm not sure why someone would care if they continue funding throughout development. More funds increases the chance of success. 

    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
    ----------------

  • seldinseldin Member UncommonPosts: 189
    I am just curious and have not taken the time to research but have they ever released the total number of individual backers?  I know that the $100M is a lot of individual ship presales.  I ask this because I was wondering what they planned to do to raise money once the game is released.  If they spend through most of the $100M and don't save enough to keep the servers going at release.  Everyone I know that wants to play the game has bought it already.  I truly dont see them getting a big influx of new sales at release and will be dependent on whatever money they have saved. 
  • Gaming.Rocks2Gaming.Rocks2 Member UncommonPosts: 531


    I could care less either way and I'm not sure why someone would care if they continue funding throughout development. More funds increases the chance of success. 
    1. An original backer might not agree with the milestones added later to the campaign. 
    2. More funds were received only because they have promised more features, so no. It doesn't necessarily mean more chance of success. 
    3. Delivery dates will change since the project has been expanded. 
    4. Cost estimation gets harder as the project grows hence increasing the chance of failure especially when it's an ongoing process. 
    5. Maintenance of the ongoing campaign has its own costs. So now people are paying so more people would be paying. 
    6. Changes and the expansions (even considering all for good) result in wasted resources on the previous concepts. 
    7. Crowdfunding money is considered as income and they have to pay taxes for it. When it becomes ongoing on this scale it means there has to be high level of accounting available to avoid paying the unnecessary taxes. Donators are paying those expenses. 
    8. The expanded team needs equipment and other services and extra staff that the Donators could not care less for. I have already seen a stretch goal to pay the video guy. Maybe I'll see one to pay for the janitor one day. 

    I can go on about this but I kind of have to go :)
    I'm not addressing SC, but all crowdfunding projects and why I believe the campaigns durations should be limited or at least have stages. 


    Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon. 
  • scorpex-xscorpex-x Member RarePosts: 1,030
    I don't have a problem with them making money, but it seems a little sleezy to have a sale on a game that still isn't even out yet.
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,003
    CrazKanuk said:
    Kyleran said:
    But where does the scope creep end?  Is it a never ending cycle of the more they raise, the more scope they'll add, and the further out the release date goes for a playable game.

    What is the actual vision.  Time to lock scope, set hard dates, stop pushing for more money and deliver something of value.

    Continuing to market endlessly while delivering little calls into question what all the money is for.


    As much as I am pro crowdfunding, I am against running ongoing campaigns.

    It's fine to add stretch goals, but only if you have mentioned them in your original campaign. It's true I'm not your customer yet - but I am donating to your vision anyhow, I need to know the whole plan right from the beginning. 
    Campaign should run a course (30-90 days) under a legitimate platform, then ends. If developers want to broaden their vision later they should do it at a certain milestone - like deliver the alpha first then be able to run another campaign on that very same platform again. 

    Setting up shop on one's site and selling stuff is not crowdfunding anymore. 



    SC is only guilty of being successful with the model. This isn't, by far, an isolated incident. Eastern MMORPGs have adopted this type of funding for a while now. 

    Basically it boils down to who is anyone to say how a campaign like this is run. Some don't agree with it, and I get that but, ultimately, it's the decision of the backer to put their money into it. Stretch Goals were mentioned. They've opened up to refunds, now. So it's actually quite transparent compared to plenty of projects. The fact it's been open for business since the beginning of development is a point of contention, but I don't think it's a mystery to anyone what they're doing. Of course they're funding. However, anyone who thinks it's not a race, too, is foolish. Funding has dropped below their burn, so it's crunch time. 

    I could care less either way and I'm not sure why someone would care if they continue funding throughout development. More funds increases the chance of success. 
    "This isn't, by far, an isolated incident. Eastern MMORPGs have adopted this type of funding for a while now."

    They have?  Examples, please?

    "More funds increases the chance of success."

    I categorically disagree.  In my (limited) experience, funds follow success, not the other way around.  You can't solve a problem by throwing money at the problem; you have to solve the problem.

    I said in an earlier post that Star Citizen's model is unsustainable; they are selling concepts of ships at a rate faster than they are being completed.  Of course, how would I know for sure?  They aren't nearly as transparent as some in the flock would have us believe.  I can only go by what I see on the outside.

    However, if someone at CIG/RSI comes to this realization they need to look at changing their operating model, not asking for more funds and expecting the problem to go away.

    "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

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130


    I could care less either way and I'm not sure why someone would care if they continue funding throughout development. More funds increases the chance of success. 
    1. An original backer might not agree with the milestones added later to the campaign. 
    2. More funds were received only because they have promised more features, so no. It doesn't necessarily mean more chance of success. 
    3. Delivery dates will change since the project has been expanded. 
    4. Cost estimation gets harder as the project grows hence increasing the chance of failure especially when it's an ongoing process. 
    5. Maintenance of the ongoing campaign has its own costs. So now people are paying so more people would be paying. 
    6. Changes and the expansions (even considering all for good) result in wasted resources on the previous concepts. 
    7. Crowdfunding money is considered as income and they have to pay taxes for it. When it becomes ongoing on this scale it means there has to be high level of accounting available to avoid paying the unnecessary taxes. Donators are paying those expenses. 
    8. The expanded team needs equipment and other services and extra staff that the Donators could not care less for. I have already seen a stretch goal to pay the video guy. Maybe I'll see one to pay for the janitor one day. 

    I can go on about this but I kind of have to go :)
    I'm not addressing SC, but all crowdfunding projects and why I believe the campaigns durations should be limited or at least have stages. 




    I think that SC is such a huge deal because it's entirely crowdfunded. People will often point at something like Elite: Dangerous and say, "See, they did it for $2 million, why can't SC?" Meantime, most don't realize that the dev did an IPO during development to fund the game. The result was a game that was missing their promised Offline mode. 

    It's very much a double-edged sword. Ultimately, though, the backer is giving them money in trust. They don't get any say, nor do they get to make demands on the dev, or determine desired direction. It's not rule by committee, which would be a freakin' nightmare, I'm sure. As mentioned, it's at least nice that they've opened up for refunds to those who want to get out. 

    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
    ----------------

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    CrazKanuk said:
    [...]
    I think that SC is such a huge deal because it's entirely crowdfunded. People will often point at something like Elite: Dangerous and say, "See, they did it for $2 million, why can't SC?" Meantime, most don't realize that the dev did an IPO during development to fund the game. The result was a game that was missing their promised Offline mode. 
    [...]
    This will help :)
    SC hacked offline mode:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3uj93k/no_ptu_access_play_it_solo/

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • TalonsinTalonsin Member EpicPosts: 3,619
    I think CR should've adopted the model of delivering the game in stages, like Elite Dangerous did, instead of trying to complete a monumental project and delivering it all in one go.

    IMO the release model that has been chosen for Elite Dangerous is much better than what CR chose for Star Citizen.

    It is better to deliver less of something initially and improve on it then keep delaying on the delivery.
    THIS

    By the time Star Citizen actually releases and they have increased costs with server hosting and support staff I truly wonder how much money they will have left.  There is no way volunteer subs will cover the support cost for this game so how will they generate money after launch when most of the fans have already purchased it and purchased the ships they want?  The ED business model generates new revenue with each expansion allowing them to continue moving forward. 

    Unless I missed something but to my knowledge Star Citizen is going to be buy to play and will not require a sub.
    "Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game."  - SEANMCAD

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    All this talk about crowd funding. I'm not a backer and never will be, even though this game looks like something I want to play.

    However, hasn't this game really moved beyond crowd funding now? There's no more "Kick Starter" It's just "buy more ships for when the game releases" Or at the very least, if my definition of "crowdfunding" is inaccurate, there has clearly been a full swing shift in how they are raising money since the initial project started. They took the initial money raised by the original backers and used it for something else. The original plan for the money was to design and develop a game. Not raise money to start a new campaign to raise more money for a whole new game that wasn't anything like the initial plan.

    And while most wanted that, not everyone did. And yet there is no accountability. It's one thing if hte project failed and the backers lost their money, it's another when the backers pledged for 1 project and were later informed "That's not really the project you backed"

    Where else in society would this be considered legal?

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,232
    edited December 2015
    Talonsin said:
     The ED business model generates new revenue with each expansion allowing them to continue moving forward. 

    Unless I missed something but to my knowledge Star Citizen is going to be buy to play and will not require a sub.
    CIG plans to offer continued episodes of the SQ42 campaign - most likely in the typical DLC price range. CIG also talked about other planned solo player campaigns that have a non-military focus. But those are supposed to come after the three SQ 42 episodes  (everyone gets SQ 42 Episode 1, early backers also get SQ 42 Episode 2, while SQ 42 Episode 3 will have to be bought as DLC).

    The PU is buy to play and will not require a sub.

    That many ED players are not exactly happy with the ED business model can be seen in the ED subforum here on MMORPG.com


    Have fun
  • karmathkarmath Member UncommonPosts: 896
    The fact people not only give their money away, yet defend the people who are scamming you is incredibly funny.
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,232

    And while most wanted that, not everyone did. And yet there is no accountability. It's one thing if hte project failed and the backers lost their money, it's another when the backers pledged for 1 project and were later informed "That's not really the project you backed"
    If backers do not support this project anymore, if this is no longer the kind of project they backed,  they can get a refund.

    Seems like significantly less than one percent  (0,2 % it was in summer according to the gaming press) have chosen to do so, even after 3 years.


    Have fun
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    Erillion said:

    And while most wanted that, not everyone did. And yet there is no accountability. It's one thing if hte project failed and the backers lost their money, it's another when the backers pledged for 1 project and were later informed "That's not really the project you backed"
    If backers do not support this project anymore, if this is no longer the kind of project they backed,  they can get a refund.

    Seems like significantly less than one percent  (0,2 % it was in summer according to the gaming press) have chosen to do so, even after 3 years.


    Have fun
    If CIG is issuing refunds without question, I would say that's fine, but I am seeing posters claiming they are being denied refunds, at least initially, and some who have gotten them have had to go to the level of threatening CIG to get their money. Unless they have fabricated the letters, They have posted the communication and that doesn't look OK to me.


  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    karmath said:
    The fact people not only give their money away, yet defend the people who are scamming you is incredibly funny.

    I think it's funny how people use the word scam like it means something it doesn't. Yes, this is a scam. Check out some streams of this scam in action. If we want to talk about scams, why don't we talk about retailers with 400%, 500, 1000% mark-ups. THIS is a scam, but I'm sure you were out feeding the biggest scammers over Thanksgiving weekend. 

    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
    ----------------

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,232
    If CIG is issuing refunds without question, I would say that's fine, but I am seeing posters claiming they are being denied refunds, at least initially, and some who have gotten them have had to go to the level of threatening CIG to get their money. Unless they have fabricated the letters, They have posted the communication and that doesn't look OK to me.
    " “We don’t publicize it, but when people reach out to us and talk to us in a rational manner, in most cases we’ve refunded them,” Cloud Imperium founder Chris Roberts said "

    https://www.vg247.com/2015/08/21/roberts-star-citizen-refund-numbers-very-very-low-definitely-the-minority/

    The operative word here being "rational". I remember one poster here that posted his conversation with CIG and right from the start it seemed to be very hostile. No wonder he got the same tune back that he himself was playing. A friend of mine got a refund without a problem - he  wrote two normal e-mails and explained his situation (and that was long before this rather open refund policy mentioned in the article above). 

     
    Have fun

  • HeraseHerase Member RarePosts: 993
    CrazKanuk said:
    karmath said:
    The fact people not only give their money away, yet defend the people who are scamming you is incredibly funny.

    I think it's funny how people use the word scam like it means something it doesn't. Yes, this is a scam. Check out some streams of this scam in action. If we want to talk about scams, why don't we talk about retailers with 400%, 500, 1000% mark-ups. THIS is a scam, but I'm sure you were out feeding the biggest scammers over Thanksgiving weekend. 
    You forgot the best part, they're scammers that offer refunds rofl


    As I said in another thread, as this project moves forward the more desperate, sad and funny the comments become. I'm all up for debating, but at least try research what you're complaining about before hand.
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    Erillion said:
    If CIG is issuing refunds without question, I would say that's fine, but I am seeing posters claiming they are being denied refunds, at least initially, and some who have gotten them have had to go to the level of threatening CIG to get their money. Unless they have fabricated the letters, They have posted the communication and that doesn't look OK to me.
    " “We don’t publicize it, but when people reach out to us and talk to us in a rational manner, in most cases we’ve refunded them,” Cloud Imperium founder Chris Roberts said "

    https://www.vg247.com/2015/08/21/roberts-star-citizen-refund-numbers-very-very-low-definitely-the-minority/

    The operative word here being "rational". I remember one poster here that posted his conversation with CIG and right from the start it seemed to be very hostile. No wonder he got the same tune back that he himself was playing. A friend of mine got a refund without a problem - he  wrote two normal e-mails and explained his situation (and that was long before this rather open refund policy mentioned in the article above). 

     
    Have fun

    That's a great policy, But again, I've seen the threads where that is contradicted. So either people are fabricating evidence, or this stated policy is open to "interpretation" by CIG.
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Erillion said:
    If CIG is issuing refunds without question, I would say that's fine, but I am seeing posters claiming they are being denied refunds, at least initially, and some who have gotten them have had to go to the level of threatening CIG to get their money. Unless they have fabricated the letters, They have posted the communication and that doesn't look OK to me.
    " “We don’t publicize it, but when people reach out to us and talk to us in a rational manner, in most cases we’ve refunded them,” Cloud Imperium founder Chris Roberts said "

    https://www.vg247.com/2015/08/21/roberts-star-citizen-refund-numbers-very-very-low-definitely-the-minority/

    The operative word here being "rational". I remember one poster here that posted his conversation with CIG and right from the start it seemed to be very hostile. No wonder he got the same tune back that he himself was playing. A friend of mine got a refund without a problem - he  wrote two normal e-mails and explained his situation (and that was long before this rather open refund policy mentioned in the article above). 

     
    Have fun

    That's a great policy, But again, I've seen the threads where that is contradicted. So either people are fabricating evidence, or this stated policy is open to "interpretation" by CIG.
    From what I've seen of it, they do ask why, but then Wal-Mart asks me why I'm returning something too, so certainly not a deal breaker. I remember seeing one on here, too, where CIG had asked why they wanted a refund and the person went off on a tirade because they asked why, lol. 

    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
    ----------------

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    CrazKanuk said:

    From what I've seen of it, they do ask why, but then Wal-Mart asks me why I'm returning something too, so certainly not a deal breaker. I remember seeing one on here, too, where CIG had asked why they wanted a refund and the person went off on a tirade because they asked why, lol. 
    LOL? 
    You think it's funny that a company who states they will give refunds but won't actually do it until after multiple communications? Yeah, rationality went out the window after the 3rd or so communication denying the refund. I'd laugh at the irony there if it weren't for the fact that someone followed through on the above instruction and didn't get the stated result. "Rational manor" is such a subjective term. You are either due a refund or you aren't.
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,232
    edited December 2015
    You are either due a refund or you aren't.
    Strictly speaking you are due a refund for the first 14 days. Not after 3 years.

    "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these Terms of Service, you may cancel your Pledge for any reason within 14 days of the date on which you made your Pledge if your Pledge is for Virtual Goods (as defined in Sec. 11 below) (“Cancellation Period”)....."

    "....If you cancel your Pledge during the applicable Cancellation Period, we will without undue delay, and in any event within fourteen (14) days from the date on which we receive notice of your decision to cancel your Pledge, fully refund to you the amount of your Pledge. .."

    After 14 days  its a voluntary refund from the side of the company CIG. And if you do not call them names at first contact and answer a question that basically ANY company asks you when you cancel their service/product, there is a very good chance to get the refund without a fuss.


    Have fun


  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    edited December 2015
    CrazKanuk said:

    From what I've seen of it, they do ask why, but then Wal-Mart asks me why I'm returning something too, so certainly not a deal breaker. I remember seeing one on here, too, where CIG had asked why they wanted a refund and the person went off on a tirade because they asked why, lol. 
    LOL? 
    You think it's funny that a company who states they will give refunds but won't actually do it until after multiple communications? Yeah, rationality went out the window after the 3rd or so communication denying the refund. I'd laugh at the irony there if it weren't for the fact that someone followed through on the above instruction and didn't get the stated result. "Rational manor" is such a subjective term. You are either due a refund or you aren't.

    No, I think it's funny that a company can't ask why you're requesting a refund without someone flying off the handle. Honestly, if you can't see the humor in that, especially considering how every single other refund process on the planet Earth is handled, then I guess it's lost on you. Just to be fair, I have seen people fly off the handle in retail stores when they're asked a question and I find it even more amusing, if not sad. 

    WRT "rational manor", I agree that's subjective. You know what, in the case I stated earlier they actually ended up giving the person a refund in light of their attitude, so I don't really think it matters. You know what, so give the person requesting a refund a survey and then just file the refund. I guess that would be a more personal way to handle it. I still have a preference for dealing with humans myself, though. 

    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
    ----------------

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    edited December 2015
    Erillion said:
    You are either due a refund or you aren't.
    Strictly speaking you are due a refund for the first 14 days. Not after 3 years.

    After 14 days  its a voluntary refund from the side of the company CIG. And if you do not call them names at first contact and answer a question that basically ANY company asks you when you cancel their service/product, there is a very good chance to get the refund without a fuss.


    Have fun
    14 days based on what? The original crowdfunding agreement?
    If that's the case, I think the argument went out the window when CIG altered that original plan. Besides, you just posted their "policy" several posts up. It says nothing about 14 days.
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,232
    14 days based on what? The original crowdfunding agreement?
    If that's the case, I think the argument went out the window when CIG altered that original plan. Besides, you just posted their "policy" several posts up. It says nothing about 14 days.
    It does not have to say anything about 14 days. This was in the TOS .. in ALL versions of it. To which every backer had to agree to. 


    Have fun
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    Erillion said:
    14 days based on what? The original crowdfunding agreement?
    If that's the case, I think the argument went out the window when CIG altered that original plan. Besides, you just posted their "policy" several posts up. It says nothing about 14 days.
    It does not have to say anything about 14 days. This was in the TOS .. in ALL versions of it. To which every backer had to agree to. 


    Have fun
    I think I will stop right here. I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion. On this page alone, you have referenced to 2 completely different refund policies based on the flow of the discussion. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the context. One is the official policy while the other is a practiced policy, however, I still find it awfully convenient, It's probably just a good time to back out since I don't think you and I are going to find common ground. 
  • jcrg99jcrg99 Member UncommonPosts: 723
    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15080-AnniVERSEary-Sale-Weapons-Free

    "We’re celebrating Star Citizen’s birthday with a huge ship sale! For the past week, we’ve brought back a selection of fan favorite limited edition ships to the pledge store so that anyone interested can pick up what they might have missed. Today, we’re kicking off the final three days of the sale by unlocking the entire fleet! Everything available the past week is now ready for purchase or CCU upgrade, so you can start your adventure with the ship of your dreams. For anyone who wants it all, a variety of master packs are also available!"

    So, they are celebrating the fact that they are 1 year delayed and celebrating such debt, with another huge ship sale (aka JPEGs since most of them does not exist, not even in their released bugged/bad designed tech demo). And for that they made some limited edition ships available limited again. But then, unlocked everything anyway, a few days later passed the new "limited" offer. And talk too about starting your adventure with the ship of your dreams, while probably not all those jpeg's been sold in the same offer will be ready/available in the day one of the exponentially delayed game.

    Cheers! Let's celebrate!
    Now EA can be forgiven for all their sins, because there is nothing that EA made in his entire existence that could be worst than all this bullshit.
Sign In or Register to comment.