Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Star Citizen and Squadron 42 split - now you suddenly have to buy second one.

11920212224

Comments

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,411
    Torval said:
    Well that obviously excuses Frontier. So, for the record, it's okay to split off your game after release and charge more for it, but it's not okay to do it before release with advanced warning. Of course, that makes perfect sense in vendetta world.
    Since ED was originally meant to be played online and offline, the more accurate comparison would be if ED had expanded their offline mode into a separate game - they just cancelled offline mode instead.

    I don't really have a problem with SC being 2, 3 or 4 games, nor with ED being B2P + DLCs now that it has released. SC could do the same after release and I'd be perfectly OK with that as well.

    What I do have a problem with is CIG and their fans saying that "this was the plan all along." That's pure BS. Just a quick read of the SC KS page description makes it pretty obvious that the original plan was 1 game with an offline mode. It's not even necessary to embellish it since there is not a thing wrong with them changing the plan. But unfortunately truth bending is just their MO and what we should all be questioning.

    Have a look at the page and tell me what there hints at two games instead of one:  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    And that's just the thing. The story keeps changing, so that only people who have really been paying attention understand what's going on with this marketing campaign, this series of promises and put-offs. It's not "just" that they're adding more, more, more. That would be one thing and everyone understands the scope of really big, popular projects can change.

    People were "sold" on Arena Commander. It's garbage today, with bad balance, bad technical issues, hounded by unchecked griefing. It's like they say, "well, that's too hard, let's focus on something else".

    People were "sold" on Star Marine. Illfonic did some amazing work and it was really starting to look great. Then the plug got pulled "somewhere", and that just became, like.. just no thing.

    People were "sold" on single player space shoot-em-up. "Hey," they think, "everything else is too hard and taking too long, let's just focus on this mode, call it a separate product and it will look like we're doing something! We can make more money on that in the meantime!"

    It's just delay after delay like they're milking it for a payout. It's just promise after promise to placate backers and attract even more backers. It's just excuse after excuse, and in the process practically changing history, to the point people who are paying close attention even start getting confused.

    Why can't they just shut up and make a game? Why is this single-system, 16 man instance, grey, boring, buggy, wanna-be alpha the best they have to show for years of work, when years ago at presentations the game looked colorful, vibrant and exciting?

    It's a problem. Many people know it's a problem, many others are too uninitiated or bought-in to the whole illusion to see or know a real difference. CIG has zero culpability, they have to answer to no one. What exactly will Star Citizen mmo be, ever, no one even knows anymore. I don't think the devs even know. It's a running joke. Aspects of it, particularly the monetary issues, are really, really sketchy.

    Anyway, this will just get buried in 30 more posts of "nuh uh" and "I always knew" and other pointless shit from people who don't even read the rest of the thread, so I guess I'll just close for now, saying, "They have missed self-imposed deadlines, they have changed stories. I feel they have blatantly lied, knowing they couldn't do, at least in a short period of time, what they said they would do. They'll continue along this path as long as you keep letting them do it."
  • BrenicsBrenics Member RarePosts: 1,939
    Adjuvant1 said:


    Why can't they just shut up and make a game? Why is this single-system, 16 man instance, grey, boring, buggy, wanna-be alpha the best they have to show for years of work, when years ago at presentations the game looked colorful, vibrant and exciting?

    Exactly, reminds me of the Angry Joe Show when he did a pledge on it. 



    Where is that game?
    I'm not perfect but I'm always myself!

    Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event


    4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.

    http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/

    Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,952
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Well that obviously excuses Frontier. So, for the record, it's okay to split off your game after release and charge more for it, but it's not okay to do it before release with advanced warning. Of course, that makes perfect sense in vendetta world.
    Since ED was originally meant to be played online and offline, the more accurate comparison would be if ED had expanded their offline mode into a separate game - they just cancelled offline mode instead.

    I don't really have a problem with SC being 2, 3 or 4 games, nor with ED being B2P + DLCs now that it has released. SC could do the same after release and I'd be perfectly OK with that as well.

    What I do have a problem with is CIG and their fans saying that "this was the plan all along." That's pure BS. Just a quick read of the SC KS page description makes it pretty obvious that the original plan was 1 game with an offline mode. It's not even necessary to embellish it since there is not a thing wrong with them changing the plan. But unfortunately truth bending is just their MO and what we should all be questioning.

    Have a look at the page and tell me what there hints at two games instead of one:  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description
    The plan for ED was to make an offline mode all along, but their plan changed and they said "too bad soo sad, this is the way it is". It's not like SC didn't give ample notice that they made this change.

    ESO said they wouldn't have microtransactions and that they would be a sub game, but that changed as their game matured and their demographic changed to include consoles. I'm sure they knew and planned it out quite early, but they didn't say anything. It's still not a bad change.

    How about Trion and their F2P shift. They certainly knew about that when they swore a blue streak it wasn't in the works and then a couple months later they're F2P.

    The list of devs and pubs that have made changes as their development, games, and IPs mature is huge. Sometimes they're forthcoming and sometimes they're not. People just hold this one to task because it's an easily ganked target. They parse and split hairs and wordsmith down to the finest detail.

    ED makes their arena pvp mode available as a separately priced stand alone for those who just want to arena pvp. Squadron 42 will be a separately priced stand alone for those who just want to play pve. I'm not seeing the problem here.

    I'm just pointing out that other games, devs, and pubs make changes. It's no stranger here than in any other dev environment. It's just that in other AAA dev houses we never see this part of the process.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,952
    Adjuvant1 said:
    Torval said:
    ... after the game is released ...
    Do you even think about what you type.
    Let's see Star Citizen persistent world mmo release.
    edit: Last I checked, this thread's about Star Citizen, not Elite. Nice try to change topic, though.
    The irony of your post is probably lost on you. It never seems like thinking is a requirement for creating or posting in these threads. It always looks a lot more like agenda opinions being marketed as facts. My post was directly relevant to the topic at hand, but in typical fashion anything that is contrary to your view is instantly dismissed as irrelevant. Nice try though.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • BrenicsBrenics Member RarePosts: 1,939
    @Torval Yet you keep comparing SC to games that all released. All SC is, is a concept mod, nothing more nothing less. Just can't compare it at this time with actual games. 
    I'm not perfect but I'm always myself!

    Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event


    4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.

    http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/

    Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,952
    Brenics said:
    @Torval Yet you keep comparing SC to games that all released. All SC is, is a concept mod, nothing more nothing less. Just can't compare it at this time with actual games. 
    Sure I can and I did. Just like that. It's a game in development. Should I compare it to other games in development? Okay, every single game I've alpha or beta tested did not launch in the state that I tested it in. Sometimes those changes were announced and sometimes they weren't. Sometimes they were upfront about the feedback they received that fired off those changes and sometimes they weren't.

    The only real fact of this development experiment is that gamers, in general, can't handle the long term dev process. There is a reason why old school player "beta" testing worked better than today. It's because they hand picked people that could deal with that sort of unstable fluid environment.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,411
    Torval said:
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Well that obviously excuses Frontier. So, for the record, it's okay to split off your game after release and charge more for it, but it's not okay to do it before release with advanced warning. Of course, that makes perfect sense in vendetta world.
    Since ED was originally meant to be played online and offline, the more accurate comparison would be if ED had expanded their offline mode into a separate game - they just cancelled offline mode instead.

    I don't really have a problem with SC being 2, 3 or 4 games, nor with ED being B2P + DLCs now that it has released. SC could do the same after release and I'd be perfectly OK with that as well.

    What I do have a problem with is CIG and their fans saying that "this was the plan all along." That's pure BS. Just a quick read of the SC KS page description makes it pretty obvious that the original plan was 1 game with an offline mode. It's not even necessary to embellish it since there is not a thing wrong with them changing the plan. But unfortunately truth bending is just their MO and what we should all be questioning.

    Have a look at the page and tell me what there hints at two games instead of one:  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description
    The plan for ED was to make an offline mode all along, but their plan changed and they said "too bad soo sad, this is the way it is". It's not like SC didn't give ample notice that they made this change.

    ESO said they wouldn't have microtransactions and that they would be a sub game, but that changed as their game matured and their demographic changed to include consoles. I'm sure they knew and planned it out quite early, but they didn't say anything. It's still not a bad change.

    How about Trion and their F2P shift. They certainly knew about that when they swore a blue streak it wasn't in the works and then a couple months later they're F2P.

    The list of devs and pubs that have made changes as their development, games, and IPs mature is huge. Sometimes they're forthcoming and sometimes they're not. People just hold this one to task because it's an easily ganked target. They parse and split hairs and wordsmith down to the finest detail.

    ED makes their arena pvp mode available as a separately priced stand alone for those who just want to arena pvp. Squadron 42 will be a separately priced stand alone for those who just want to play pve. I'm not seeing the problem here.

    I'm just pointing out that other games, devs, and pubs make changes. It's no stranger here than in any other dev environment. It's just that in other AAA dev houses we never see this part of the process.
    I understand what you're saying and like I said, I have absolutely no problem with changes happening during and after development - that's normal... that's life. And I have seen the responses by many who can't handle it and always play the lie card. But you know I'm not one of those.

    I'm seeing something different here that isn't just about being privy to details we never see. If you don't, that's fair enough, but I've been smelling a rat here for a long time. There's just something about CR and his crew that I don't trust... creeps me out actually. Let's just say my spidey senses are tingling and not in a good way.
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
    edited February 2016
    Torval said:
    The plan for ED was to make an offline mode all along, but their plan changed and they said "too bad soo sad, this is the way it is". It's not like SC didn't give ample notice that they made this change.



    That's not true. Frontier didn't pitch the game stating it would have an offline mode. It was a request from backers during the kickstarter, at which time (pre-prototype phase) the company thought it would probably be viable.
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko Member EpicPosts: 6,916
    Torval said:
    ...

    The only real fact of this development experiment is that gamers, in general, can't handle the long term dev process. There is a reason why old school player "beta" testing worked better than today. It's because they hand picked people that could deal with that sort of unstable fluid environment.
    In the "old school dev process", the game that was tested even in closed beta was usually pretty much feature-complete. Ordinary players didn't get anywhere near the game before that. The beta testing seldom resulted in major changes to systems or content.

    Kickstarter changed all that. I've always said it would lead to major issues, because of the long MMORPG dev cycle. 
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Torval said:
    The plan for ED was to make an offline mode all along, but their plan changed and they said "too bad soo sad, this is the way it is". It's not like SC didn't give ample notice that they made this change.



    That's not true. Frontier didn't pitch the game stating it would have an offline mode. It was a request from backers during the kickstarter, at which time (pre-prototype phase) the company thought it would probably be viable.
    If this were SC's kickstarter, would it matter when it was introduced to it?, they also waited until just a month before it was about to release to announce it's cancellation. Can you imagine the uproar had CIG waited until a month before release to announce this split, as well as other changes in direction? 

    You can't hold one accountable to breaking promises while not holding the other. 

    They didn't even want to pledge to refund over it, simply saying...... "Refund requests are evaluated on an individual basis against the applicable terms and conditions of sale.".. in other words "if we can legally keep your money regardless of that broken promise, we will.."  

    As folks would say in regard to SC, this is a crowdfunded game... this is unacceptable...


    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
    Distopia said:
    If this were SC's kickstarter, would it matter when it was introduced to it?, they also waited until just a month before it was about to release to announce it's cancellation. Can you imagine the uproar had CIG waited until a month before release to announce this split, as well as other changes in direction? 

    You can't hold one accountable to breaking promises while not holding the other. 

    They didn't even want to pledge to refund over it, simply saying...... "Refund requests are evaluated on an individual basis against the applicable terms and conditions of sale.".. in other words "if we can legally keep your money regardless of that broken promise, we will.."  

    As folks would say in regard to SC, this is a crowdfunded game... this is unacceptable...


    I wasn't saying whether it's right or wrong just that the original premise of Frontier promising an offline mode all along wasn't exactly true. Details matter.

    I do think they should have informed people of the situation much sooner and had they done so they should have offered a no quibble refund at the same time.
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    Torval said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    Torval said:
    ... after the game is released ...
    Do you even think about what you type.
    Let's see Star Citizen persistent world mmo release.
    edit: Last I checked, this thread's about Star Citizen, not Elite. Nice try to change topic, though.
    The irony of your post is probably lost on you. It never seems like thinking is a requirement for creating or posting in these threads. It always looks a lot more like agenda opinions being marketed as facts. My post was directly relevant to the topic at hand, but in typical fashion anything that is contrary to your view is instantly dismissed as irrelevant. Nice try though.
    But elite! Derp!

    Star Citizen thread. Star Citizen conversation.

    "But daaaaaddd, other people doooo iiiiit"

    Star Citizen thread. Star Citizen conversation.

    Before you contribute to the thread again, remember the mantra. Say it.

    Star Citizen thread. Star Citizen conversation.
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Adjuvant1 said:
    Torval said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    Torval said:
    ... after the game is released ...
    Do you even think about what you type.
    Let's see Star Citizen persistent world mmo release.
    edit: Last I checked, this thread's about Star Citizen, not Elite. Nice try to change topic, though.
    The irony of your post is probably lost on you. It never seems like thinking is a requirement for creating or posting in these threads. It always looks a lot more like agenda opinions being marketed as facts. My post was directly relevant to the topic at hand, but in typical fashion anything that is contrary to your view is instantly dismissed as irrelevant. Nice try though.
    But elite! Derp!

    Star Citizen thread. Star Citizen conversation.

    "But daaaaaddd, other people doooo iiiiit"

    Star Citizen thread. Star Citizen conversation.

    Before you contribute to the thread again, remember the mantra. Say it.

    Star Citizen thread. Star Citizen conversation.
    IN other words do not bring up pertinent subjects Adjuvant1 doesn't agree with... You realize for a thing to be an issue with one game it has to be out of the norm, otherwise it's just the same crap on a different shovel.. Perhaps you do realize that..hmmm

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,952
    Torval said:
    ...

    The only real fact of this development experiment is that gamers, in general, can't handle the long term dev process. There is a reason why old school player "beta" testing worked better than today. It's because they hand picked people that could deal with that sort of unstable fluid environment.
    In the "old school dev process", the game that was tested even in closed beta was usually pretty much feature-complete. Ordinary players didn't get anywhere near the game before that. The beta testing seldom resulted in major changes to systems or content.

    Kickstarter changed all that. I've always said it would lead to major issues, because of the long MMORPG dev cycle. 
    I don't agree. I've been in alpha and beta tests as recently as Neverwinter Online where some features were changed, cut, or added. In many of those tests several similar system frameworks were presented and then one (or a subset) were chosen as the final. Those changes and decisions can radically alter gameplay and feel.

    While public alpha/beta testers weren't on the same level as internal testing (those were actual employees tasked with writing tests and real bug reports) they were often used to test system use under load. How does this system work "in the controlled wild so to speak" compared to our smaller pool of internal testing.

    Crowd funded projects have changed the landscape and change always causes issues. Some changes and consequences are good and some are bad. That's just the nature of the beast. Overall I would say that how it has shaken up the industry is to the benefit of all. If not we would likely still be seeing the stagnant corporate machine doing the same safe thing the same safe way. Instead, crowd funding has caused ripples in every corner of the industry and a little shake up is good.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    I don't play Elite. What Elite does has no bearing on what I see the CIG project doing. If anything, you're feeding into Robert's need to compete... I guess that part is understandable, as with all the other space sims' progress this year will make 2016 SC's death of a thousand paper cuts.

    What do you think is the point of comparing the games? Just because, "everyone else is doing it so why can't we"? Other games don't have 108 million of other peoples' money, with zero product to show. Let's talk about that.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,952
    Iselin said:
    I understand what you're saying and like I said, I have absolutely no problem with changes happening during and after development - that's normal... that's life. And I have seen the responses by many who can't handle it and always play the lie card. But you know I'm not one of those.

    I'm seeing something different here that isn't just about being privy to details we never see. If you don't, that's fair enough, but I've been smelling a rat here for a long time. There's just something about CR and his crew that I don't trust... creeps me out actually. Let's just say my spidey senses are tingling and not in a good way.
    I don't entirely disagree with you. A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing. My trust level is at zero and I have my doubts about some things as well. With me, those doubts extend to most devs and pubs until they prove differently.

    ESO for example, I was a huge critic of Firor and his original smoke and mirrors media campaign. I still don't trust ZOS. But, they've made an awesome game and they have a really good content and QoL release pace. I take much of what they say (champion system, vet ranks, pvp, pve) with a grain of salt until it actually starts to show up in the next release package.

    My point being that I'm generally positive about the company despite my trust level. There may be something rotten here at RSI, but I also think the constant drama threads and parsing every phrase down to minutiae is overboard and is the sort of herd mentality that leads to a self fulfilling prophecy.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    Torval said:
    ... that leads to a self fulfilling prophecy.
    I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Are you implying supporters are casting derision, and in result the game will not be successful? The CIG employees themselves? What are you saying here?

    Also, of which project aspect are you "generally positive, despite trust level"?
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Torval said:
    Iselin said:
    I understand what you're saying and like I said, I have absolutely no problem with changes happening during and after development - that's normal... that's life. And I have seen the responses by many who can't handle it and always play the lie card. But you know I'm not one of those.

    I'm seeing something different here that isn't just about being privy to details we never see. If you don't, that's fair enough, but I've been smelling a rat here for a long time. There's just something about CR and his crew that I don't trust... creeps me out actually. Let's just say my spidey senses are tingling and not in a good way.
    I don't entirely disagree with you. A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing. My trust level is at zero and I have my doubts about some things as well. With me, those doubts extend to most devs and pubs until they prove differently.

    ESO for example, I was a huge critic of Firor and his original smoke and mirrors media campaign. I still don't trust ZOS. But, they've made an awesome game and they have a really good content and QoL release pace. I take much of what they say (champion system, vet ranks, pvp, pve) with a grain of salt until it actually starts to show up in the next release package.

    My point being that I'm generally positive about the company despite my trust level. There may be something rotten here at RSI, but I also think the constant drama threads and parsing every phrase down to minutiae is overboard and is the sort of herd mentality that leads to a self fulfilling prophecy.

    I totally agree with your last point. Also I totally agree with you on ED. How can ED not be a valid comparison? Essentially started at the same time, two development paths that are/were very different. However, the methodology was similar, I think. That being modular design. The biggest difference, I think, is that Braben got it right. 

    However, I think that the biggest farce with this whole good vs evil SC discussion is that people WANT to believe in something fantastical. @Iselin is a perfect case-in-point. I mean it's one thing to not believe that it's going to be possible to complete a game in time due to things like a lack of funds, etc. However, it seems like people want to believe that something extra nefarious is going on here. However, the reality is that the amount of time, effort, and co-ordination it would take to pull off a scam of this magnitude would require the successful management of 250 employees across 4 or 5 or however many offices, and 20 or so companies. Shoot, it might take less effort to just finish the game than to orchestrate the scam itself. We are talking about very well-coordinated efforts. 


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

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,952
    Adjuvant1 said:
    Torval said:
    ... that leads to a self fulfilling prophecy.
    I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Are you implying supporters are casting derision, and in result the game will not be successful? The CIG employees themselves? What are you saying here?

    Also, of which project aspect are you "generally positive, despite trust level"?
    Most any of the companies I deal with. In that specific instance I was thinking of ZOS, but it could apply to EA, Trion, NCSoft, Turbine, Funcom, Cryptic/PWI, or any of the other pubs/devs where I play their games.

    If a company has screwed me over or our "business relationship" is ruined to the point where I dislike them so much I'll never do business again then I move on and not waste my time constantly raging against them at every turn. What purpose would that serve?
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,967
    I think the whole notion of games being released before they're ready has been going on way before kick starters.  I remember SWG Devs saying the game was released before it was ready and a lot of features were being added over time.  Also when the game companies stop paying beta testers is when the model went through major changes, which evolved to some testers paying for alpha and beta early access.

    "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

  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    The "herd mentality" about this project, though, is generally positive, self-propagated by the "number of contributors" and "income received" statistics. People rationalize, "because so many people have contributed and because the game has so much income, it can't possibly be bad and it's destined to succeed beyond any level of imagination". You see these numbers cited all the time by scorg, in the effort to further propagandize the project.

    What "torval" or, indeed, what "adjuvant1" thinks or feels about the project will not affect the ultimate outcome of this project's success. If I understand the numbers correctly, fewer than 1% of CIG contributors post in message threads or even, as a matter of fact, bother to view the development videos. According to numbers, there's some 99% "silent majority", which is really odd, in and of itself. Therefore, we're to understand some one million people will keep the game going, "if the game, by its own merits, is good".

    Does this mean I think the numbers aren't "real"? Well, define "real". I guess I cannot answer that because it's unsubstantiated and I have no leg to stand on in the argument, I'd may as well not even start. As a matter of fact, forget I said anything, and I certainly didn't say there are investors in this project being paid monthly dividends.
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Adjuvant1 said:
    The "herd mentality" about this project, though, is generally positive, self-propagated by the "number of contributors" and "income received" statistics. People rationalize, "because so many people have contributed and because the game has so much income, it can't possibly be bad and it's destined to succeed beyond any level of imagination". You see these numbers cited all the time by scorg, in the effort to further propagandize the project.

    What "torval" or, indeed, what "adjuvant1" thinks or feels about the project will not affect the ultimate outcome of this project's success. If I understand the numbers correctly, fewer than 1% of CIG contributors post in message threads or even, as a matter of fact, bother to view the development videos. According to numbers, there's some 99% "silent majority", which is really odd, in and of itself. Therefore, we're to understand some one million people will keep the game going, "if the game, by its own merits, is good".

    Does this mean I think the numbers aren't "real"? Well, define "real". I guess I cannot answer that because it's unsubstantiated and I have no leg to stand on in the argument, I'd may as well not even start. As a matter of fact, forget I said anything, and I certainly didn't say there are investors in this project being paid monthly dividends.

    First off, how can you possibly say that the herd mentality about the project is generally positive and propagated by contributors? I've seen threads surviving entirely on commentary by the, for lack of a better word, anti-heroes. In fact, I made a comment about it last week. In reality, people will see what they want to see. Until someone actually goes and counts each post and who posted it and what they "affiliation" is then you can't say one way or the other. 

    Secondly, why would CIG "lie" about the numbers? What purpose does it serve? It's all in the numbers. Even Derek Smart agrees that their monthly burn rate at present is likely to be in the 2.5 million area. So that's a burn of around 30 million in the past year, probably 25 or so the year before that, and probably 15-20 the year before that. Right there we're looking at anywhere between 70-75 million. Plus there was a year before that, right? Either way, and blatantly ignoring interest on investments, etc., etc. they would run out of money this year. In reality, they probably have a couple years. However, I don't know why you don't have a leg to stand on. It's simple mathematics. The money isn't materializing out of thin air. In the end, does it really matter if it's $75 or $100 million? 

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

  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    CrazKanuk said:

    First off, how can you possibly say that the herd mentality about the project is generally positive and propagated by contributors? I've seen threads surviving entirely on commentary by the, for lack of a better word, anti-heroes.
    Here on mmorpg, or are you including the SC subreddit and official forums? Are you talking about over the last 3 years or the last 2 months?

    CrazKanuk said:

    Secondly, why would CIG "lie" about the numbers? What purpose does it serve?
    Well, they don't actually "report numbers", but rather they "report numbers that make the project look glorious". People in reddit and official forums say often, "they don't need to report financials! they're not obligated!", yet they do report some, but nowhere near enough to present a clear depiction.

    Why do they only report "certain" numbers in a vague format? What purpose does it serve? Why haven't we seen lists of expenditures, or an explanation why exactly there are 14 different embodiments shuffling around assets? Why are people granted "some data" and forced to speculate on the rest? Why, if it's none of our business, do they bother to post any numbers at all?

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Adjuvant1 said:
    CrazKanuk said:

    First off, how can you possibly say that the herd mentality about the project is generally positive and propagated by contributors? I've seen threads surviving entirely on commentary by the, for lack of a better word, anti-heroes.
    Here on mmorpg, or are you including the SC subreddit and official forums? Are you talking about over the last 3 years or the last 2 months?

    CrazKanuk said:

    Secondly, why would CIG "lie" about the numbers? What purpose does it serve?
    Well, they don't actually "report numbers", but rather they "report numbers that make the project look glorious". People in reddit and official forums say often, "they don't need to report financials! they're not obligated!", yet they do report some, but nowhere near enough to present a clear depiction.

    Why do they only report "certain" numbers in a vague format? What purpose does it serve? Why haven't we seen lists of expenditures, or an explanation why exactly there are 14 different embodiments shuffling around assets? Why are people granted "some data" and forced to speculate on the rest? Why, if it's none of our business, do they bother to post any numbers at all?

    Because it makes them look good/successful, hoping it instills confidence in potential backers in turn it broadens the numbers contributing to their campaign? That would be my guess anyway...

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


Sign In or Register to comment.