Howdy, Stranger!

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

Do not give this project any more money.

Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100

For those not familiar, I am a conscientious objector to the company on the basis or principle.

I'm not trying to tell you how to spend your money. I'm warning, from my educated understanding of the project, this is a fleecing of the gaming community, and your money is better spent elsewhere.

Many long-term contributors to the project have become wise to the nefarious practices and are seeking refunds.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/

Many long-term contributors who are not yet seeking refunds are in a process of open rebellion on the official forum.
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/374420/lets-talk-about-3-0-status/p6

The most recent bold-faced lie from the CIG hierarchy was from the fall, when it was stated they "hoped to have 3.0 alpha by the end of the year". This was said as an intentional falsehood to garner additional funding from instilling false hope. The real timeline is closer to late 2017. There's zero way this was not fully known when the statement was made.

The most recent lackluster release of a proof-of-concept was the fps shooter module "Star Marine", two years later than promised, easily exploitable for client-side code, simplistic and unfun, lacking a majority of promised features.

If you're new to this project, you deserve to be warned of the developers' collective ineptitude and tall tales before you make a monetary commitment.

If you're not new to the project, you owe it to yourself a second consideration of the gaslighting, the historical revisionist culture in which you've found yourself immersed.

CIG has enough money, now well over twice what they said they needed, to do what they said they were going to do.

It's time they deliver, no more advertising, no more empty words, no more nonsense.

Tell CIG today you want a finished product before you give them another cent. This is only to your benefit.

Thanks for listening.


«13456

Comments

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 41,498
    edited March 2017
    Is there really that many gamers unfamiliar with SC and its funding / delays?

    Well, judging from how cash continues to flow in either a great many do not, or those who do continue to keep the faith.

    Im my case I haven't contributed to "the cause" and won't until post launch.

    "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






  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    Paying for the product only when it has been delivered is advice always worth repeating, especially in this age where companies employ all manner of tricks to get your money early.


  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    >>>
    Many long-term contributors to the project have become wise to the nefarious practices and are seeking refunds.
    >>>

    First of all ... the OP has no numbers to support his statement of "many" ....  and "many" becomes relative if you compare it with hundredthousands of paying crowdfunding backers or around 1.8 Million Star Citizen accounts on the SC website.   The only known official number is years old ... it  was a 0.2 % refund rate back then.

    The OP presented his personal opinion as a fact.

    Is should also be noted that a significant number of these "long-term contributors" he mentions were grey market gamblers that bought limited-issue pledge packages and resold them for profit at highly inflated prices to other backers. When CIG broke the back of the grey (and black) market by re-offering these limited edition ships (so backers that wanted one did not have to buy them at triple the price), some of those gamblers tried to recoup their losses by trying to get refunds.

    I suggest ...

    if you want to check it out, do it for free during one of the Free Fly Events. If you like it and/or want to support the development of a crowdfunding space-sim project ... go for it.

     if you are not sure if this is the game for you, wait until it is finished and decide at that point.


    Have fun


  • francis_baudfrancis_baud Member RarePosts: 479
    "The most recent bold-faced lie from the CIG hierarchy was from the fall, when it was stated they "hoped to have 3.0 alpha by the end of the year"."

    Any evidence that it was a lie (aka they knew at that time that they were saying something false)?
    JamesGoblin
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    Yet another thread about delays/dates, with added propaganda about refunds.

    Trying to imply a mass exodus is underway, "OMG many people getting refunds and revolting"; this feels more like fear mongering people into not buying SC and if they did, to get it refunded.

    Any evidence that it was a lie (aka they knew at that time that they were saying something false)?
    Nope, this is "my opinion is the fact" type of thread. From that to actually claim something to a proven truth, nope.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    Actually, I'm very happy to be a subscriber - and I doubt that'll change any time soon.
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    MaxBacon said:
    Yet another thread about delays/dates. Now with added propaganda about refunds.

    Trying to imply a mass exodus is underway, while everyone is running for refunds and such; this feels more like fear mongering people into not buying SC and if they did, to get it refunded.


    Yep ... another FUD thread ... like the other 30 before it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

    Again aiming for 19 pages of posts ?


    Have fun

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    edited March 2017
    "The most recent bold-faced lie from the CIG hierarchy was from the fall, when it was stated they "hoped to have 3.0 alpha by the end of the year"."

    Any evidence that it was a lie (aka they knew at that time that they were saying something false)?
    I think people are operating on the information that's popped up in recent episodes of ATV and various interviews where they have said they are only just starting to work on concepts for things that were going to be key elements in 3.0 / 3.1

    If Roberts was honestly convinced that 3.0 would arrive before the end of last year then those key elements would be finished or atleast, close to being finished. Instead we're hearing they're at a very early design stage... and this is 7 months after his announcement.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    Kyleran said:
    Is there really that many gamers unfamiliar with SC and its funding / delays?
    Imo it isn't a matter of familiarity but not understanding the impact and consequences on development.

    But yeah, vast majority likely does not even care...
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    I think people are operating on the information that's popped up in recent episodes of ATV and various interviews where they have said they are only just starting to work on concepts for things that were going to be key elements in 3.0 / 3.1

    If Roberts was honestly convinced that 3.0 would arrive before the end of last year then those key elements would be finished or atleast, close to being finished. Instead we're hearing that they're at a very early design stage.

    Keep it simple: There is no evidence side of one's opinion.

    The early at design is another one, there's bits on economy that show themselves early, but several other features as cargo where already shown footage of.
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    Erillion said:
    by re-offering these limited edition ships

    Then this was a lie. The company netted sales on the premise they were limited edition and reneged.

    "The most recent bold-faced lie from the CIG hierarchy was from the fall, when it was stated they "hoped to have 3.0 alpha by the end of the year"."

    Any evidence that it was a lie (aka they knew at that time that they were saying something false)?
    I don't understand how it's not common sense. Say there are a few people looking to get your funding, I tell you I can show you a result within a couple months. You very well may trust this and fund me, but five months later, three months past my presented date, that delivery is still not only "months away" but given no new definite schedule.

    I don't like being treated this way. Neither should you. These are not our family members or friends to whom we might grant some amount of such leeway. These are supposed to be professional people who are operating a for-profit enterprise.

    "These things take time, game delivery is a process."

    YES! a process people are paying them to professionally navigate! The only thing professional in the practice of false promising is con-artistry. Are these the people who even can deliver such a promised finished product? From behavior like this, why aren't we questioning?

    You're forgiving too much to believe for one moment it's acceptable.

    Tell them no more. I don't want to see the product rushed out the door. If it take 2 years, fine. But use the resources given, the resources which are literally two times what was asked to perform the function, and get it done.

    Give them no more money, hold them to their words.
  • bartoni33bartoni33 Member RarePosts: 2,044
    Erillion said:
    MaxBacon said:
    Yet another thread about delays/dates. Now with added propaganda about refunds.

    Trying to imply a mass exodus is underway, while everyone is running for refunds and such; this feels more like fear mongering people into not buying SC and if they did, to get it refunded.


    Yep ... another FUD thread ... like the other 30 before it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

    Again aiming for 19 pages of posts ?


    Have fun

    I wonder if the Mods close a topic when it gets close to the 20 page horizon? I'm not sure why the last shit-thread was closed or why our pink-pork pal got the BoS. Seemed to be the same old shit posted every week here.

    Anyway... I partially agree with OP. Try the free weekend; if you like it then buy the cheapest package available. Do not spend retarded amounts of money on ships like some sex addict at the local Blow-Mart. That shit needs to stop. 

    Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.


  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    Isn't it amusing that these conspiracy theories keep popping up, even after all the previous ones have been utterly destroyed?

    I mean, they said the exact same thing about all the previous releases - including 2.0 and Star Marine.

    CR/CIG also "lied" about their release dates - and yet they're now released.

    So, I'm struggling to see the argument here.

    CR "lied" about HOPING to get 3.0 by the end of year. Ok, let's assume this is true - just like he "lied" about all those other missed release dates.

    What's the problem if 3.0 is eventually released?
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    Adjuvant1 said:
    Give them no more money, hold them to their words.
    What if... Star Citizen's development depends on the constant income of funding? As he so admitted.

    Then what you'll get is nothing.
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    bartoni33 said:
    I wonder if the Mods close a topic when it gets close to the 20 page horizon? 
    I think they should close any thread that goes beyond 2 Pages on this forum, because that's what it takes tops to the discussion derail into oblivion. I got two, the other guy got one I think, gg us.
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    DKLond said:
    Isn't it amusing that these conspiracy theories keep popping up, even after all the previous ones have been utterly destroyed?

    I mean, they said the exact same thing about all the previous releases - including 2.0 and Star Marine.

    CR/CIG also "lied" about their release dates - and yet they're now released.

    So, I'm struggling to see the argument here.

    CR "lied" about HOPING to get 3.0 by the end of year. Ok, let's assume this is true - just like he "lied" about all those other missed release dates.

    What's the problem if 3.0 is eventually released?
    Because the false detail he supplied, that he hoped to have 3.0 by the end of the year, just as when they were saying SM was "weeks not months" inspires urgency in the minds of people funding but it is intentional misinformation.

    That, also, should not be hard to understand.

    Further, SM (Star Marine) is a fragment of what was ever promised, or if you want to say proposed I can run with that, too.

    I really shouldn't be going round and round like this. I am helping sensible people make a sensible decision. If it's good when it releases, i.e. release state, i.e. a product in a state one would consider a retail product, then get it. For now, they have enough money, they've made enough empty promises. They should make do with what they have.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    MaxBacon said:
    I think people are operating on the information that's popped up in recent episodes of ATV and various interviews where they have said they are only just starting to work on concepts for things that were going to be key elements in 3.0 / 3.1

    If Roberts was honestly convinced that 3.0 would arrive before the end of last year then those key elements would be finished or atleast, close to being finished. Instead we're hearing that they're at a very early design stage.

    Keep it simple: There is no evidence side of one's opinion.

    The early at design is another one, there's bits on economy that show themselves early, but several other features as cargo where already shown footage of.

    After the other day one would think you would have learned a lesson in telling people they are flat out wrong.
    If you want evidence then ask for it instead of this awful attitude you take via comments like "Keep it simple: There is no evidence side of one's opinion."

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    Adjuvant1 said:
    Further, SM (Star Marine) is a fragment of what was ever promised, or if you want to say proposed I can run with that, too.
    No it is not, you're playing your opinion as the FACT. You're saying that the majority of what SM was said to be, is not there, what vast majority is that?
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    Adjuvant1 said:
    DKLond said:
    Isn't it amusing that these conspiracy theories keep popping up, even after all the previous ones have been utterly destroyed?

    I mean, they said the exact same thing about all the previous releases - including 2.0 and Star Marine.

    CR/CIG also "lied" about their release dates - and yet they're now released.

    So, I'm struggling to see the argument here.

    CR "lied" about HOPING to get 3.0 by the end of year. Ok, let's assume this is true - just like he "lied" about all those other missed release dates.

    What's the problem if 3.0 is eventually released?
    Because the false detail he supplied, that he hoped to have 3.0 by the end of the year, just as when they were saying SM was "weeks not months" inspires urgency in the minds of people funding but it is intentional misinformation.

    That, also, should not be hard to understand.

    Further, SM (Star Marine) is a fragment of what was ever promised, or if you want to say proposed I can run with that, too.

    I really shouldn't be going round and round like this. I am helping sensible people make a sensible decision. If it's good when it releases, i.e. release state, i.e. a product in a state one would consider a retail product, then get it. For now, they have enough money, they've made enough empty promises. They should make do with what they have.
    You mean in your ignorant fantasy, it's intentional.

    In the real world, it's the obvious result of complex software development being very unpredictable - and Chris Roberts being overly optimistic.

    Please support how Star Marine was ever supposed to be released in a completed form. I'd love to see your source for that :)

    No, you're spreading your own delusional and ignorant position as misinformation.

    That's not quite the same thing.

    However, none of this changes my point.

    Again, if 3.0 is going to be released - then why shouldn't we support it, if we want it?

    I really would like to understand.
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    After the other day one would think you would have learned a lesson in telling people they are flat out wrong.
    Not wrong, evidence is a thing, the opinion you form yourself from looking at the situation at hand is another, and currently what we are talking about is what we think he did / what we think that happened.
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    edited March 2017
    MaxBacon said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    Further, SM (Star Marine) is a fragment of what was ever promised, or if you want to say proposed I can run with that, too.
    No it is not, you're playing your opinion as the FACT. You're saying that the majority of what SM was said to be, is not there, what is that?
    Are you going to make me dig all this up from two years ago when you know exactly what I'm saying is true? There is no open game arena similar to Ender's Game which was proposed. The play is not close to on par with other fps games like COD CR referenced. The module is horribly flawed with easily manipulable client-side code, worse than anything "The Division" could have even imagined.

    When you're looking at Star Marine, you're looking at the musings and failings of a handful of amateurs playing about with a "store-bought" engine from Amazon, like a 1.99 shooter off Steam.

    Have you no taste in the genre? Must you be so blindly complicit?

    Why?
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    MaxBacon said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    Further, SM (Star Marine) is a fragment of what was ever promised, or if you want to say proposed I can run with that, too.
    No it is not, you're playing your opinion as the FACT. You're saying that the majority of what SM was said to be, is not there, what is that?

    And here you go yet again, just 2 posts later with the "You're wrong" attitude, why can you not be a little bit more respectful and civil?

    Star Marine was meant to be technical like ARMA, it was supposed to feature so much more than what has been delivered, much deeper health/medical mechanics, dragging of members to safety, all sorts of cover mechanics, a much larger range of weaponry, that SATA Ball thing and many many more features.

    So yes, it is indeed a fragment of what was originally claimed would arrive with Star Marine.

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    Adjuvant1 said:
    Have you no taste in the genre? Must you be so blindly complicit?
    You're again playing your opinion as the fact. It's literally like, everyone who disagrees with you there is delusional because somehow what you are stating is factual.

    Most of what SM is today, is what SM was always meant to be, one arena match-based FPS shooter, if your opinion is what is released is a faction of what they shown it to be, I'll disagree.

    So yes, it is indeed a fragment of what was originally claimed would arrive with Star Marine.
    So no, I disagree with your opinion that it is. What they shown on the first SM Demo is by big majority all there, on the released SM laid upon the alpha.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    MaxBacon said:
    After the other day one would think you would have learned a lesson in telling people they are flat out wrong.
    Not wrong, evidence is a thing, the opinion you form yourself from looking at the situation at hand is another, and currently what we are talking about is what we think he did / what we think that happened.
    Unbelievable, you are not asking for evidence.... You are just flat out declaring I am wrong without even knowing what information I am basing my comment on.

    I don't think you even care about information, you just want to jump on opposing comments and demand that they are wrong as a way of stopping people from thinking they might actually be right.

    Even if I deliver examples you will claim some other crap to avoid admitting that you were actually wrong and I am right.

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    Unbelievable, you are not asking for evidence.... You are just flat out declaring I am wrong without even knowing what information I am basing my comment on.
    Because there isn't evidence, there is what you and I think from the information you are basing yourself on. It's one opinion because the statement you are making with it, does not become factual truth.

    There are several scenarios that could have led to the same outcome, you don't get to nitpick one of them and call it the somehow proven truth. You and anyone else gets however, to declare such as their opinion of it...
This discussion has been closed.