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.

1235

Comments

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    MaxBacon said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    I was calling these things before DS was. I don't even get credit, the unsung hero.
    Wait... Are you Tufao/Manzes? 

    If so you're the guy I saw naysaying about SC before I ever knew what SC was. lol
    :lol:


    Nope ... Tufao/Manzes/jcrg99 posts would be twice or trice as long ... and in a different, extremely verbose  writing style. We had half a dozen clones of jcrg99 here ... all of them easily recognizable and quickly getting themselves permabanned.


    Have fun

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    edited March 2017
    MaxBacon said:
    1) I wasn't saying you or other said they weren't working on it, yet that they weren't working TOWARDS it's announced deadline internally and were purposely lying pretending they were.

    2) I don't have to apologize to you. You said I was wrong when what I am claiming is that the claims that they were lying, are not proven the truth, yet one of the ways we can speculate what happened.

    Simply that.
    But you were, you said that unless we had proof they weren't working towards it then we were implying that everyone was lying...


    No you don't have to apologise but most people see it as the polite thing to do.
    See, even now you are trying to turn this back on me by saying I was claiming you were wrong. WTH?

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

    In case you need reminding that's how this started. It had nothing to do with me saying you were wrong. You initiated this, the least you could do is hold your hands up and admit it.

    Anyhow, please please please stop trying to bait me. I realise how futile it is having these conversations with you, so I would like nothing more than to not be pestered by them.

    Thank you in advance.

  • bartoni33bartoni33 Member RarePosts: 2,044
    Erillion said:
    MaxBacon said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    I was calling these things before DS was. I don't even get credit, the unsung hero.
    Wait... Are you Tufao/Manzes? 

    If so you're the guy I saw naysaying about SC before I ever knew what SC was. lol
    :lol:


    Nope ... Tufao/Manzes/jcrg99 posts would be twice or trice as long ... and in a different, extremely verbose  writing style. We had half a dozen clones of jcrg99 here ... all of them easily recognizable and quickly getting themselves permabanned.


    Have fun

    Ahh yes good ol' jcrg99! Forgot about him.

    I still miss Brenics myself. I guess he never made an Alt here. :(

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


  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited March 2017
    MaxBacon said:
    bartoni33 said:
    I'm sure he will have no issues in stating they all were lying.

    Maybe they actually were? Hell I can't tell anymore. CR has been proven to be such a big blowhard you can't blame anyone for not knowing his true intentions.
    Maybe they weren't... Maybe they were given one aggressive deadline to rush towards, one that it shown itself not possible to keep up with.

    And what shocker would that be?

    2.6 itself was meant months before it released, and even when it released they are still today, 3 months after, doing the 2.6.2 to implement features/tech that was to be delivered within the main update.
    But that leaves you without a very good alternative: they're, or CR, are showing in competency in either development, management, or internal communication.

    End result is the same, in my mind: don't give them money until I see a complete game.

    image
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    edited March 2017
    mgilbrtsn said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    mgilbrtsn said:
    "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)?
    not only that, but they say 'hoped.'  That's hardly the declarative statement of the century.
    There was zero hope. No matter how you arrange or portray it, it was a falsehood. It was impossible.
    I'm not portraying it any way.  I can 'hope' for peace on earth.  In no situation is that a lie.  It's a hope, even though I have a feeling it won't happen.  It could be disingenuous, but words have meaning.  Lie is a very specific meaning and has very specific consequences and shouldn't be thrown around without some sort of evidence.

    Unfortunately, evidence isn't necessary on the interwebs which promotes people to use whatever accusations/language and otherwise say whatever they want without consequence.  This just leads to foolishness in these arguments.  For instance... You lied by saying 'it was impossible'  They could very easily have put something out.  Whether it was good or not doesn't enter into it.  It is possible... you liar. (No, I don't think you're a liar, just making a point)
    It was a lie to inspire people to drop money on the project. It worked, just like so many "definitely" and "absolutely" answers in 10 ftc, just like so many promises of limited availability ships and LTI.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    edited March 2017
    MaxBacon said:
    If he was purposely lying... Then was Erin Roberts lying? Was Brian Chambers lying? Was Sean Tracy lying? When they all also claimed 3.0 planned by the end of the year?

    Because you can't claim CR lied without claiming they all purposedly lied. 
    Um....so what other explanation do you have?

    Because if one would assume they are not completely incompetent and/or not lying I truly do not see, considering the state of the project today, how they could claim SQ42 or 3.0 for release before the end of 2016.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Erillion said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    MaxBacon said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    I voted you an "insightful" for catching on! Great job!
    So your argument is that the CIG higher ups and employees were all lying?

    Your argument is that they were not working towards a late-year release of 3.0 and knew that when it was announced?
    I don't honestly believe 3.0 was anything other than a statement "there will be a 3.0" when it was discussed last fall. There's no possible way it could have been.

    You didn't even like how I caught out Erillion's argument on page 1 about reneging on "limited availability spaceship.jpgs". It's like you're being lied to so much, all over, you're not even seeing it fly by your eyes.
    >>>
    You didn't even like how I caught out Erillion's argument on page 1 about reneging on "limited availability spaceship.jpgs".
    >>>

    I stated the reason why CIG did make limited ships available again ... to crash the grey/black market that was getting out of hand ... and in my opinion it was an excellent decision and worked very well.

    CIG also stated officially why they decided to again offer limited edition ships .... there are literally hundredthousands of new backers that never had the chance to get such ships because they did not know about Star Citizen back then.  Seems like quite a  few asked CIG for a chance to obtain these ships too.


    Have fun

    Crashing the market is understandable,  even if CIG themselves created the market through limited edition ships to make money for themselves.  

    Bringing them back for new backers??  What?  The entire point of limited edition is that, if you don't get them during the limited windows you don't get them.

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    Adjuvant1 said:
    In that era I was just mildly perturbed, like you are. 
    Yeah ...

    Anyhow, please please please stop trying to bait me.
    However, I do feel baited... into conversation? lol

    But that leaves you without a very good alternative: they're, or CR, are showing in competency in either development, management, or internal communication.

    End result is the same, in my mind: don't give them money until I see a complete game.
    Most certainly the interest of the higher ups want to get things done as quickly as possible, so what way I see it the developers/teams may be facing deadlines they can't keep up with all the time. Those deadlines shouldn't be given to the public though...
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    edited March 2017
    CrazKanuk said:
    Ok, so this is a bit silly. Just because they are just starting a gameplay team doesn't mean that they haven't focused on gameplay up until now. I've worked at my current company for over 10 years now, and we just established a UX Design team like 3 or 4 years ago. That doesn't mean that prior to that we didn't have any interested in user experience design. What it DOES mean is that there will be a team dedicated to gameplay going forward. 

    Honestly, what I think is harmful about this post is that there are a couple claiming to be objective, educated people attempting to educate others because of their conscience, but they are using really shady and underhanded tactics in order to attempt to fool people. That's what is most sad. Wasn't it just last week that you were claiming to be objective @rpmcmurphy? Wasn't it just last week that you made ME feel guilty for calling you a doomsayer? Interesting...... 

    Are you a backer that follows this gane, I can't remember?

    A. You're taking anecdotal evidence from your experience and claiming it also fits for CIG's experience without any proof. If there are gameplay teams that have been referred to before then by all means show me. I am open to this. 

    B. It's also funny how you focus on a single piece excluding the other 2 relevant pieces in your attempt to claim some lack of objectivity on my part.

    C. It is you that bangs on about objectivity, perhaps I mentioned it a month or two ago but it is you that seems to want to use it as a bludgeon against anything I post. What's up with that?

    D. You did call me a doomsayer, and then only a few days later you were laughing about people who call others doomsayers.... interesting indeed.


    First, yes, I am a backer. I've got a whole $20 tied up in this game. 

    A. Yes, I am using anecdotal evidence to support facts. Are you really claiming that up until now there has been no gameplay development? That's fucking hilarious because every aspect that you are PLAYING in the game right now on the PTR is GAMEPLAY! 

    B. First of all, I didn't feel like I needed to address the other two points since I addressed and shattered your first point. However, if I must..... Do you think it's possible that they had planned on releasing 3.0 as-is without missing features? It would probably explain how something that was planned for release at the end of 2016 might get pushed out a few months. No? This happens quite often in software development, and we see it quite often in games. We see features removed, only to be put back in later once they've been properly implemented. If you'd like a list of games that did this in the past I can do that for you. ED is the most recent one, who is wavering on whether or not to release multi-crew ships. 

    C. I don't have a problem with people posting their opinion, go for it! So what's your problem with me stating my opinion that you're completely lacking objectivity? I mean I know you're a huge ED fan, and I never see you call out the warts in that game, but you seem to be on the list of doomsayers any time that an SC post comes up? I'm not saying that I'm objective, but at least I've made plenty of posts AGAINST SC, even though I'm generally a fan. So I like to think I'm TRYING to remain objective. Fuck, I can't even disagree with the post title, but for much different reasons. My main reasoning would be precedent. I think that if SC is actually successful, it sets a bad precedent for crowdfunding because it will encourage more companies to take their crowdfunding efforts offline, or do them privately entirely, looking to build massive, extended funding after their initial goals were met. Did you notice, though, how I said "I think" instead of using words like "definitely" or "facts"? Yeah, that lets people know it's my opinion and that I'm not trying to pawn myself off as being an expert on crowdfunding. 

    D. Yup! I actually said that I use the term pretty loosely and I think it's a hilarious characterization. Same goes for the term white knight and fanboi, which pains be to spell. It's fucking hilarious because the reality is that this sort of shit exists for every game. Even your beloved ED. Fuck I even came across this reddit today. If ED wasn't the topic, you could easily mistaken it for an SC thread, or a less popular SC thread. Basically what it boils down to is that when people talk shit about something that you like, regardless of how relevant it might be, people will take offence to it. 

    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
    It's false advertisement, and somehow they get away with it in the vague method they convey it. I tried to explain that here...
    http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/445787/this-is-what-people-really-believe-theyre-getting-when-they-invest-in-star-citizen/p1

    ...but all I got was "HOW DARE YOU SLIGHT A FAN FOR MAKING A VIDEO!!!!11!1one!1!!"

    "What, you thought SQ42 was going to be released in Feb '16? You fool! No one thought that!"
    Why, yes, yes some people did. Some people thought SM would be available in late spring '15. They were led to believe these things (months not years) intentionally to garner profit for the company.

    Just like how the company made money from the statement something to the effect of "3.0 by the end of the year".

    But all you ever hear from the revisionists is "You didn't listen properly!"

    I wasn't slighting the guy for the video, I told him it was good. The issue was that, while he was telling the absolute truth the way it was being pumped into his head, all he was doing was parroting false advertisement. Kinda like what Erillion does, his statements are truthful, from the spun, revisionist gaslighting that's crapped out by CIG, which is the false ad.

    Is that Erillion's "fault"? no, I guess not, and it's not Shodanas' fault, or CrazKanuk's fault, or Max's fault. But in the end, from the source, it's not truthful and it's not good.

    Stop giving CIG money. Tell them to finish with what they have.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    MaxBacon said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    In that era I was just mildly perturbed, like you are. 
    Yeah ...

    Anyhow, please please please stop trying to bait me.
    However, I do feel baited.

    But that leaves you without a very good alternative: they're, or CR, are showing in competency in either development, management, or internal communication.

    End result is the same, in my mind: don't give them money until I see a complete game.
    Most certainly the interest of the higher ups want to get things done as quickly as possible, so what way I see it the developers/teams may be facing deadlines they can't keep up with all the time. Those deadlines shouldn't be given to the public though...
    But they are, because they're not getting money from traditional investors, which would be who they would be giving the deadlines to in that case.

    So yes, they absolutely should be shared with backers, which essentially means with the public.  The point is, good leaders don't continuously give their teams unrealistic deadlines to meet.  Your response to my statement was, quite frankly, exactly what I would expect from someone attempting to justify a sunk cost fallacy.

    image
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    bartoni33 said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    bartoni33 said:
    MaxBacon said:
    bartoni33 said:
    I'm sure he will have no issues in stating they all were lying.

    Maybe they actually were? Hell I can't tell anymore. CR has been proven to be such a big blowhard you can't blame anyone for not knowing his true intentions.
    Maybe they weren't... Maybe they were given one aggressive deadline to rush towards, and then it has shown itself not possible.

    And what shocker would that be? 2.6 itself was meant months before it released, and even when it released they are still today, 3 months after, doing the 2.6.2 to implement features that couldn't be implemented on the main release.
    Maybe.

    At this point all I can say for sure is that CR needs to step away from the lead role and keep his gob shut.
    Careful. I said that a long time ago, when I was only slightly perturbed, and even then the usual suspects appeared and flamed my posts into inanity. I cited the fact CR never came CLOSE to finishing Freelancer, it was bought-out and he was "re-assigned" to an "advisory role" (lol), and Microsoft finally "finished" it 2years later, (without CR as lead anything or even "programmer" credited) if you can call it finished. Oh, then all hell broke loose. "HOW DARE YOU INSULT GREAT COMMANDANT ROBERTS! HE IS SAVIOR!".

    Maybe you'll get away with saying such things. You're not me.
    I'm not speculating on his past performances. I'm talking about his horrible track record with SC. That can't be disputed. Well I guess it can but you would be wrong! ;)
    Freelancer is a good past example of history repeating itself. If you want to get a good idea of how SC can go then read up about freelancer and you will see parallels between the 2 projects
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    ... attempting to justify a sunk cost fallacy.
    This was discussed a lot , too, in exactly these words 1-1.5 year ago. That got buried in peripheral fanboi tripe and more people dropped more cash, unwisely.

    It needs to stop.
  • YumeTsukaiYumeTsukai Member UncommonPosts: 40
    edited March 2017
    So, Adjuvant - nice of you to try and warn unsuspecting gamers. But most of it will fall on deaf ears, ear s belonging mostly to SC dedicated fans. There will be arguments and counter-arguments... but you know what is most incredible? ANYONE should be able to tell he is getting ripped off when a dev amasses 140 mil $ in donations and keeps accepting donations, in a 5 year span, with very little conclusive results. If they really cared about releasing the game, they would have stopped at ~40-50 mil and focused on getting it done.  So... the fact that people are aware of this and don't care about it means they either don't miss their invested money or don't care. And there's no cure for that.
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    So yes, they absolutely should be shared with backers, which essentially means with the public.  The point is, good leaders don't continuously give their teams unrealistic deadlines to meet.  Your response to my statement was, quite frankly, exactly what I would expect from someone attempting to justify a sunk cost fallacy.
    If the game is past-deadlines, meaning the budget is also under pressure (per norm), it is obvious the higher ups will try to force the teams to hurry much and deliver as much as possible.

    With that, the crunch hours, unpaid hours other things show themselves as the pressure the team is having to deliver, because time is money. So it's not sunk cost fallacy (for 45$? lol), it's just something very real within development.


  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko Member EpicPosts: 6,916
    Seems like whenever there's not a SC megathread active, some wild-eyed crusader immediately starts one to keep SC in the limelight, lol

    The project would probably have folded long ago without this continuous stream of publicity keeping the money rolling in... :lol:
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    edited March 2017
    Gdemami said:
    MaxBacon said:
    If he was purposely lying... Then was Erin Roberts lying? Was Brian Chambers lying? Was Sean Tracy lying? When they all also claimed 3.0 planned by the end of the year?

    Because you can't claim CR lied without claiming they all purposedly lied. 
    Um....so what other explanation do you have?

    Because if one would assume they are not completely incompetent and/or not lying I truly do not see, considering the state of the project today, how they could claim SQ42 or 3.0 for release before the end of 2016.
    What they're doing is quite obvious IMO, they're purposefully undershooting the target dates to get people to spend now, a lot of these projects do this. As it's easier to get people to spend if they think they'll see the return "soon"...

    Call it lying or whatever, all they have to do is say "it's been delayed". In the software/games world, that's all that's needed more or less to get away with it. 








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


  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    MaxBacon said:
    So yes, they absolutely should be shared with backers, which essentially means with the public.  The point is, good leaders don't continuously give their teams unrealistic deadlines to meet.  Your response to my statement was, quite frankly, exactly what I would expect from someone attempting to justify a sunk cost fallacy.
    If the game is past-deadlines, meaning the budget is also under pressure (per norm), it is obvious the higher ups will try to force the teams to hurry much and deliver as much as possible.

    With that, the crunch hours, unpaid hours other things show themselves as the pressure the team is having to deliver, because time is money. So it's not sunk cost fallacy (for 45$? lol), it's just something very real within development.


    No, setting a deadline for a build that won't even have the underlying requirements ready to complete it until AFTER the deadline for the overall build (set by the project manager) is NOT an example of "crunch time".  It's an example of either an unrealistic manager, a gross lack of competency in the individual project members, or a spectacular failing of communication.  That type of confusion and cross-channeling is NOT a normal project growing pain.  It's not hard logic to follow that, if they underlying components of a project won't be done until X date, then you cannot complete the total project/build before that date (and it's unrealistic in almost every case to assume you could complete the project that day unless those components are the very last to be added to the entire project or build).

    I don't care about SC either way, but I err on the side of skepticism because consumers get screwed enough by the status quo- last thing I want is to see folks getting screwed by the revolution, so to speak.

    And you seem to think a sunk cost fallacy can only apply to monetary values, and you imply it should only pertain to high monetary values at that.  No such restrictions apply to the fallacy.

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    Seems like whenever there's not a SC megathread active, some wild-eyed crusader immediately starts one to keep SC in the limelight, lol

    The project would probably have folded long ago without this continuous stream of publicity keeping the money rolling in... :lol:
    Yup. Thanks to @Adjuvant1 more money shall keep rolling in, giving more highlight and attention to SC within all the visitors of this website. The concept that no publicity is bad publicity actually works, because all you need is get your name known.

    And with how he is fear mongering people with some those wild claims of refunds, claims of revolts and so forth, will only hint back positively for the game once incoming major updates get released.
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,056
    Adjuvant1 said:

    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.

    Many long-term contributors who are not yet seeking refunds are in a process of open rebellion on the official forum.

    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.
    Here is my problem.. Being that I am an educated gentleman, I am unable to take anything from your posting as credible.. I am not a backer of the game, nor a defender, nor an attacker.. I have taken the "watch and wait" approach to seeing if this game can become something similar to the old Earth and Beyond I enjoyed back in the day..

    Your advice seems to be aimed at helping the community.. at first.. But, what clues me in to your potential underlying motives is your choice of wording.. You immediately define yourself as a conscientious objector (which, by its nature, implies a degree of neutrality) and then go on to utilize hostile/leading words such as "nefarious", "bold faced lie", "ineptitude", and "gaslighting"..

    If your intent is to help, then perhaps a better choice of wording and more neutral writing stance could better get your point across.. If your intent is not, however, then you are already well aware of the impact of your wording.. If you have a problem with this game, then fine.. It will either be produced (proving you incorrect) or it will be a scam (which you may then loudly proclaim yourself vindicated to all who care)..
    There are a handful of games out right now that might fit this definition.  What makes Star Citizen so special?

    "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

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    Distopia said:
    Call it lying or whatever
    That was the crux of my question - if he does not believe it was a lie, what else he think it is?
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    MaxBacon said:
    If he was purposely lying... Then was Erin Roberts lying? Was Brian Chambers lying? Was Sean Tracy lying? When they all also claimed 3.0 planned by the end of the year?

    Because you can't claim CR lied without claiming they all purposedly lied. 
    Um....so what other explanation do you have?

    Because if one would assume they are not completely incompetent and/or not lying I truly do not see, considering the state of the project today, how they could claim SQ42 or 3.0 for release before the end of 2016.
    What they're doing is quite obvious IMO, they're purposefully undershooting the target dates to get people to spend now, a lot of these projects do this. As it's easier to get people to spend if they think they'll see the return "soon"...

    Call it lying or whatever, all they have to do is say "it's been delayed" and in the software/games world, that's all that's needed more or less to get away with it. 








    I have, and will continue to call it "lying". I don't think I or anyone else here really just tricked you for calling it what it is.

    People need to be aware CIG lies before they give CIG money. They do it routinely, they've been doing it for years. Every uninitiated person who comes across the project deserves to be armed with this information.

    Do you or do you not agree?

    I think we've had a similar conversation before. This time around you're more on the fence. Won't you cross over and help?
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    CrazKanuk said:
    First, yes, I am a backer. I've got a whole $20 tied up in this game. 

    /*
    snip
    */

    A. But that is not a fact. Just because something happened in your situation does not mean the same is happening in a totally separate situation.
    No I am not claiming there has been no gameplay devleopment, does this even need to be stated?
    I am showing a video of Brian Chambers talking about stuff for 3.0 and he mentions it within that context which is why it's relevant.

    B. LOL you didn't "shatter" my point. Haha.
    No I don't think they were going to skip something that was the main bullet point for 3.0, nor were they going to skip the Room System which is deemed as being essential for 3.0. It would be far more likely that they have to delay the whole thing which is what we are seeing now. 

    C. You clearly do otherwise you wouldn't be running this diatribe and making repeated snipes about objectivity. Virtually everytime you address any of my posts you take this approach and yet now you're claiming all opinions are fair? 

    D. See the thing is I have no problem being called critical, overly critical even because admittedly I am very critical. But doomsaying is just a stupid thing to say because that would only be hurting myself due to me having money involved in this project.

    Anyway, this is getting marvelously off topic.

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    edited March 2017
    Adjuvant1 said:
    It's false advertisement, and somehow they get away with it in the vague method they convey it. I tried to explain that here...
    http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/445787/this-is-what-people-really-believe-theyre-getting-when-they-invest-in-star-citizen/p1

    ...but all I got was "HOW DARE YOU SLIGHT A FAN FOR MAKING A VIDEO!!!!11!1one!1!!"

    "What, you thought SQ42 was going to be released in Feb '16? You fool! No one thought that!"
    Why, yes, yes some people did. Some people thought SM would be available in late spring '15. They were led to believe these things (months not years) intentionally to garner profit for the company.

    Just like how the company made money from the statement something to the effect of "3.0 by the end of the year".

    But all you ever hear from the revisionists is "You didn't listen properly!"

    I wasn't slighting the guy for the video, I told him it was good. The issue was that, while he was telling the absolute truth the way it was being pumped into his head, all he was doing was parroting false advertisement. Kinda like what Erillion does, his statements are truthful, from the spun, revisionist gaslighting that's crapped out by CIG, which is the false ad.

    Is that Erillion's "fault"? no, I guess not, and it's not Shodanas' fault, or CrazKanuk's fault, or Max's fault. But in the end, from the source, it's not truthful and it's not good.

    Stop giving CIG money. Tell them to finish with what they have.

    You still haven't answered to why this is ok for some, but it's criminal when SC does it? I mean, FUCK! ED got people to buy into a crowdfunding campaign, shipped them an incomplete game and then made them spend more money to get the additional features, lol. Crickets...... ED even sells you an expansion (commanders, in beta) and then tells you that one of the major features might not even be released with it, lol. Again, if you're REALLY wanting me to, I'll compile a list of games that have issued significant delays. It's not a small list. However, if THAT would satisfy you, I can do it. Just say the word. 

    I guess what I'm asking for is what you're looking for exactly. With the latest Gamestar article, you get some insight into delays. Fuck, that even admits there were delays!! Revisionist or not, CIG is actually saying things were delayed. I can definitely understand your point, but I've given you context and reasoning as to why this might happen, if you were somehow unfamiliar with the industry, and you have just ignored my posts up until now. So what are you wanting exactly?

    If you're now wondering what I want, feel free to enlighten me as to how this is not a common industry issue. I know it is because I can google and find 10, 50, 100 quotes from devs talking about delays, how they're common and why they're common. 

    PS they do have forums, so I don't know why you wouldn't ask your questions there and wait for a response. I think one of the biggest problems with this project is that people simply don't "ask the question", presently company included. Not that it would matter. 

    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
    MaxBacon said:
    Seems like whenever there's not a SC megathread active, some wild-eyed crusader immediately starts one to keep SC in the limelight, lol

    The project would probably have folded long ago without this continuous stream of publicity keeping the money rolling in... :lol:
    Yup. Thanks to @Adjuvant1 more money shall keep rolling in, giving more highlight and attention to SC within all the visitors of this website. The concept that no publicity is bad publicity actually works, because all you need is get your name known.

    And with how he is fear mongering people with some those wild claims of refunds, claims of revolts and so forth, will only hint back positively for the game once incoming major updates get released.
    That only happens when you clown the truths into inanity. Won't you stop?
This discussion has been closed.