Star Citizen - Valentines Day Free Fly Event (with multi-crew ship)

Kefo · February 2017

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

CrazKanuk said:

Kefo said:

Still no evidence to disprove the claim of nepotism I see and still using a mistake I admitted to and corrected in a later post to try and get out of answering my question

It's becoming painfully clear that you don't have the answer and are just resorting to passive aggressive attacks. Or demanding links from me when you don't even post one that would refute the claim of nepotism.

There isn't much point to continuing with you because it feels like I am repeating myself to try to get you to answer truthfully or at least admit you have no clue and you keep bringing up a mistake I made with punctuatation.

If you would like like to discuss like adults then feel free to post what I have asked for and I'll take that as you're ready to continue and drop the insults.

You are right, there isn't much point in continuing, because you've already said before that you're just here for the drama. Even if someone were to provide you with completely acceptable information, you wouldn't accept it because that's not your prerogative.

I actually would. While I might be here for the drama cause it helps pass the time when I'm bored I do accept things and have thanked people in the past for pointing things out for me.

Hey, I'm fine with that, but it's when objectivity leaves the building that it just becomes bait (which much of your points are). Since we just reached 1, why don't you ask DS how long you should continue raising funds. He's been doing it longer than CR and his game is still in development, and has been for several years more than SC. Perfect example of how adding context to your argument actually creates perspective.

The difficulty with your post isn't that you ask questions, it's that you continually move goal posts and, additionally, provide no context for what "acceptable" is. Without that, any answer is in constant flux. This isn't just for you, though, it's a question for the larger gaming community and it's something that is problematic only because of crowdfunding. Additionally, it's only become problematic because of transparency. There are other similar games *cough cough* which don't provide such numbers, so you'd never know whether they're making a killing or whether they're drowning.

That being said, giving you the benefit of the doubt, long, multi-point posts are difficult to manage at the best of times, so it's entirely possible that the moving of goal posts is only a product of you clarifying your original question. To that end, you should be able to appreciate how some may feel fatigued after answering the same questions on a weekly basis for the past year and a half. Honestly, SC has had more patches in the past year and a half than the haters have had new, valid arguments.

EDIT: I will say that I don't know if this reached 1 organically or because @Erillion taunted, but I'll leave that up to others to decide.

That being said, Derek, the question was to list a released game to have more bugs than SC Alpha, so in that regard he's not wrong. However, AGAIN adding context, there are a plethora of games which have/had more bugs at release than what SC does right now. The question just attempts to put someone on the spot. The counter to that is there are, actually, no metrics published metrics to say which is buggier anyway. A game could have a major bug a launch which makes it appear to be buggier, when it actually has fewer defects per kloc than something else. So, yeah, the question and answer are both kind of baity.

I never attempted to move the goalposts. Perhaps it's as you said me clarifying my questions made it seem that way but that's not who I am. I did provide context on the nepotism question when I said companies tend to hire based on past experience. I asked for something showing experience prior to working at CIG that dealt with marketing and got the usual run around lol.

I broke it down into points to make it easier to read since replying within the reply would have made this 10x more exhausting to do. I conceded some things when presented with a good argument and didnt push for more. I'm simply asking for proof (something Erillion is always keen to ask for) but so far I haven't seen it.

If the arguments came to a good conclusion then chances are they wouldn't be brought up again. A few have died on the vine because of things released or not released. Also some of my questions were just specific to this thread so I don't think there should be any fatigue to answering them.

This is why I like your replies because they actually address things in a straight forward manner as opposed to trying to twist things around so much the original point gets lost in the mass of replies. If only other people could just do what you do these threads wouldn't grow as large as they do lol.

Erillion · February 2017

dsmart said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

7) Erin might have games under his belt but so do plenty of other devs out there. Hiring Erin sure you can say he has experience but then hiring your wife? It starts to creep into nepotism at this point. Not sure why you mention cryengine devs since I doubt they are family or friends so not sure you understand nepotism.

7) He hired her based on what? If she has degrees in marketing then sure but I don't ever remember anything she's done before the project. Which means he hired her on what basis?

She was hired based on the mere fact that she's his wife. Period. End of story.

In the general scheme of things, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. Nepotism has it's pros and cons. The issue is that they made a very good attempt to hide it. Ask why that is, and you will have your answer.

Until I broke the news and made it public, they knew that hiring someone with ZERO experience in the gaming industry would raise questions and look bad that he hired his wife instead of other more qualified people. That's why they were so mad when I broke the news; and Chris only acknowledged it in his ludicrous Oct 2015 diatribe about me and The Escapist.

This YT interview from 2013, should've been a clue. You can clearly see how awkward it was, that they were avoiding the subject etc. It wasn't until third-party sources confirmed that they were in fact hiding it, that people took notice of what I had written in my blog - months earlier. Until then, nobody believed it.

She neither has experience, nor a degree in marketing. All her claims to that effect have been found to be FALSE; thus making her an academic fraud.

She has gone on the record (now removed - but ofc we have archives) saying she has no idea what her VP of marketing was supposed to be. Which explains a lot since there were marketing people there working for her and who are responsible for the game's marketing. You don't have to have any experience in a position in order to take the credit and/or responsibility for it. Heck, companies hire execs from completely different industries all the time.

Then ask yourself this: What marketing has there been for the project, and which has been attributed to it's success. The answer you're searching for would be none. You can go on eBay - right now - put up something to sell, pay extra for visibility. Boom. Marketing. Basically it was hype (from media, gamers etc) - and significant amount of LIES that got the project to this point. And now it's being torn down systematically as more and more people - including the media* - realize that after all this time, the emperor really had NO CLOTHES.

And Guinness NEVER certified nor verified her credentials. They certified the crowd-funding metrics. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have written extensively about this Sandi fiasco, including an entire blog from some months ago.

And back when they were accusing me of stalking, harassment etc - with zero proof - they didn't bother to say anything that my claims about her credentials being false. I was looking forward to that one because considering the hole my attorney tore into Ortwin, his response to that particular one would have been epic.

* this PC Invasion excerpt about the on-going free fly made most of us LOL

Predictably there is also a ship sale on as CIG encourage players to pump yet more cash into the game. Out advice is don’t whip out that wallet, they already have over 142 million to make this. If they can’t make it with that then there’s no hope for it.

No one said anything about Guiness Book of World Records verifying anything about Sandi Gardiner. The amount of crowdfunding money was verified by independent parties so it can make its way into the GBWR.

If Chris Roberts has chosen a person that is able to get 143 M$ through crowdfunding marketing I personally do not care if that person is the granny of Chris Roberts or his wife or a marketing expert with a list of 40 training certificates. Results matter.

Have fun

dsmart · February 2017

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

sgel said:

Yeah, nice dig
Seriously.. name a few games that on release had less bugs than the SC alpha.

Also, you still haven't answered on what you mean by "larger".. do you mean the in-game playing area? Mechanics? Content? What?

>>>>Name a few games that on release had less bugs than the SC Alpha ?>>>>
--> Witcher 3 comes to mind, also Mass Effect (you asked for LESS bugs)

With "larger" i mean the scope of the game (space sim + FPS + economic simulation + sandbox + social Simulation + racing Simulation etc.) as well as the number of technical innovations. Even the limited playing space we see in the SC Alpha ("Crusader" area, Arccorp area, the racetrack etc.) is more than a lot of games offer.

Have fun

Name ONE technical innovation. Just ONE.

The combination of all these parts into one working whole sandbox game.
Something which you have chased for the last 21 years ... and failed. Repeatedly.

Have fun

PS:
@Kefo ... it worked ;-)
Sorry Smarty .. insider joke.

They haven't done it. So you can't claim that they have. And they never - ever - will.

They have: fps + ships + space. That's it. Heck, even a little known indie game like Angels Fall First on Steam, has ALL of that. And even AFF already has planets.

SC doesn't [yet] have planets; despite showing various tech demos (starting with Nyx) for almost two years now. And if - as I suspected and wrote a while back - they do get planets the way recent rumors suggest, it will be no different from how LoD and a few other games do it.

Then what do you have? A game that's playing catch-up but which cost over $142m of backer money. In short, my analogy of paying $100 for a $10 box, comes into play.

And you must be mistaken because I've done it - several times in fact. The ONLY thing that I didn't get to do until LoD was fps inside ships and stations.

Again, we know that facts are meaningless to you; but at the very least, come up with something that can't be easily checked.

dsmart · February 2017

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

@rpmcmurphy
For many of the things you mentioned there ARE known metrics (e.g. playtime, Login numbers, financial contributions etc.). So actually i DOES tell you if you want to know.
There are also public statements from dev team members on numbers. And other numbers have been verified by external sources (like Guiness Book of World Records team).

Have fun

That's rubbish. The only thing Guinness ever certified, was it being the largest crowd-funded game at the time. Nothing else.

The only metrics we gleam from public sources are the funding amounts. Which aren't even accurate seeing as they don't take refunds, loans, investors into account.

Citizens metrics. Unverified Rubbish

Fan metrics: Unverified Rubbish

Sales metrics: Unverified Rubbish

You seem to have failed to check that its AGAIN in the Guiness Book of World Records.
With higher numbers.
You can make an account at the GBWR Website, log in and check the numbers yourself.
And according to the GBWR rules these numbers have to be verified. So CIGs numbers w.r.t. GBWR have been verified by an external Party.

Have fun

I have an account. What you said is rubbish. And the way Guinness works is that they go from numbers provided to them. So people with 5 accounts is still 5 accounts, instead of 1 unique account.

Erillion · February 2017

dsmart said:

rpmcmurphy said:

CrazKanuk said:

Yeah, this is totally normal. I mean we've seen the same with ED in the last month. Average player activity is up 50% (6k versus 4k) average. Similarly, that will ultimately fall back off to the more normal 4k numbers.

Again, this isn't a bad thing. What's most important is the revolving player numbers. So 2-week activity is probably what is most telling, and ED is still cranking away at like 10% which is very respectable, based on what I've seen.

Either way, the fact is that it's uncharacteristic for players to play a game during alpha/beta. So while I respect your debate on facts, etc. and attempting to use logic to put a metric on it, but the only fact is that any number that we throw out there right now is meaningless because there are significant factors which impact any sort of accurate data collection. Even if there was an accurate, reliable, data source, do we have enough information to intelligently estimate expected numbers at release, based on Alpha statistics?

Bearing in mind that Steam accounts for less than half of the playerbase.

But I agree fully otherwise, and in regard to your question, no I don't think we do. We could speculate based on other space games and all that but there's always the possibilty a World of Warcraft situation occuring, although given the hardware requirements, sci-fi focus and that it's a new IP would make it more unilkely.

The SC metrics are all false and like the development itself, fraught with obfuscation. The numbers are all largely meaningless.

And all our metrics, going back months now, lead to the conclusion that only a few whales are still propping up the funding. Heck, according to latest metrics, even the VD sale which funnily goes to 02/28, has seen less than 1000 backers so far buying ANYTHING. And furthermore.

It's a scam. All of it. At the point where Chris came out and said that if funding dried up, they would have enough money to finish only SQ42, sealed the deal on that particular point. Clearly.

For a scam, gaming journalists worldwide have seen hundreds of people hard at work for years in the CIG studios. Strange. The personnel there clearly all work for free me seems if what you say is true.

As for your claims and blogs - it is very enlightening to see YOUR claims examined more closely:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart/comments/4yfyi2/drama_megathread_2016_revision/

At which point your narrative falls apart when your propaganda collides with facts at high speed.

Have fun

dsmart · February 2017

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

sgel said:

Erillion said:

--> Yes, the Alpha so far is tiny to what the complete Persistent Universe will be. But it is already larger and more complex than many fully launched games out there. And it has also less bugs than many fully launched games out ther ;-)

What do you mean by larger? Could you name a few games that are smaller than the SC alpha? Could you name some released games that have more bugs than the SC alpha?

>>> name a few games that are smaller than the SC Alpha >>>> About two thirds of the games on Steam are smaller than the SC Alpha in my opinion and my experience.
>>>>Released games that have more bugs than the SC Alpha ? >>> Well, "Battlecruiser 3000AD" comes to my mind ;-)

Have fun

I know you can't help yourself because defending the Star Citizen scam is a full-time job.

But comparing the bug-fest that is a $142 million tech demo, to an INDIE game from 1996 (FROM 21 YEARS AGO) is always good for a laugh.

You guys can't go a few posts without somehow dragging me or my games into your nonsense.

I have compared a game in Alpha development (called Star Citizen) with a released game (Battlecruiser 3000 AD) that was so much a bug-fest that the gaming press at that time called it (Gamespot, 17th December 1996):
"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/battlecruiser-3000-ad-review/1900-2538148/

Have fun

Yet somehow, after 21 years, you've missed the hundreds of games that came after and which were even worse; and unlike BC3K - were never actually fixed to any working condition.

Nice try.

Erillion · February 2017

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

sgel said:

Erillion said:

--> Yes, the Alpha so far is tiny to what the complete Persistent Universe will be. But it is already larger and more complex than many fully launched games out there. And it has also less bugs than many fully launched games out ther ;-)

What do you mean by larger? Could you name a few games that are smaller than the SC alpha? Could you name some released games that have more bugs than the SC alpha?

>>> name a few games that are smaller than the SC Alpha >>>> About two thirds of the games on Steam are smaller than the SC Alpha in my opinion and my experience.
>>>>Released games that have more bugs than the SC Alpha ? >>> Well, "Battlecruiser 3000AD" comes to my mind ;-)

Have fun

I know you can't help yourself because defending the Star Citizen scam is a full-time job.

But comparing the bug-fest that is a $142 million tech demo, to an INDIE game from 1996 (FROM 21 YEARS AGO) is always good for a laugh.

You guys can't go a few posts without somehow dragging me or my games into your nonsense.

I have compared a game in Alpha development (called Star Citizen) with a released game (Battlecruiser 3000 AD) that was so much a bug-fest that the gaming press at that time called it (Gamespot, 17th December 1996):
"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/battlecruiser-3000-ad-review/1900-2538148/

Have fun

Yet somehow, after 21 years, you've missed the hundreds of games that came after and which were even worse; and unlike BC3K - were never actually fixed to any working condition.

Nice try.

Fixed ?

I made the mistake of buying BC3000AD out of a 2 €-old-games-bin many years after it was released.

It was STILL the bugfest that Gamespot described many years earlier.

Have fun

dsmart · February 2017

Erillion said:

As for your claims and blogs - it is very enlightening to see YOUR claims examined more closely:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart/comments/4yfyi2/drama_megathread_2016_revision/
At which point your narrative falls apart when your propaganda collides with facts at high speed.

Have fun

I like these ones better:

All Derek Smart's blogs outlining why Star Citizen is an unmitigated scam

And these are my all-time favorites:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/14715-CIG-Employees-Talk-Star-Citizen-and-the-State-of-the-Company

Inside the Troubled Development of Star Citizen
The 24-Year Feud That Has Dogged Star Citizen (English translation of “Star Crisis” article in Swedish LEVEL mag, June 2016)
Who Are the Star Citizen Superbackers? (re-print of an August 2016 article)
What Happened to Star Marine, Star Citizen’s Missing Module
What to Make of Star Citizen (added on 09/30)

Erillion · February 2017

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

sgel said:

Yeah, nice dig
Seriously.. name a few games that on release had less bugs than the SC alpha.

Also, you still haven't answered on what you mean by "larger".. do you mean the in-game playing area? Mechanics? Content? What?

>>>>Name a few games that on release had less bugs than the SC Alpha ?>>>>
--> Witcher 3 comes to mind, also Mass Effect (you asked for LESS bugs)

With "larger" i mean the scope of the game (space sim + FPS + economic simulation + sandbox + social Simulation + racing Simulation etc.) as well as the number of technical innovations. Even the limited playing space we see in the SC Alpha ("Crusader" area, Arccorp area, the racetrack etc.) is more than a lot of games offer.

Have fun

Name ONE technical innovation. Just ONE.

The combination of all these parts into one working whole sandbox game.
Something which you have chased for the last 21 years ... and failed. Repeatedly.

Have fun

PS:
@Kefo ... it worked ;-)
Sorry Smarty .. insider joke.

They haven't done it. So you can't claim that they have. And they never - ever - will.

They have: fps + ships + space. That's it. Heck, even a little known indie game like Angels Fall First on Steam, has ALL of that. And even AFF already has planets.

SC doesn't [yet] have planets; despite showing various tech demos (starting with Nyx) for almost two years now. And if - as I suspected and wrote a while back - they do get planets the way recent rumors suggest, it will be no different from how LoD and a few other games do it.

Then what do you have? A game that's playing catch-up but which cost over $142m of backer money. In short, my analogy of paying $100 for a $10 box, comes into play.

And you must be mistaken because I've done it - several times in fact. The ONLY thing that I didn't get to do until LoD was fps inside ships and stations.

Again, we know that facts are meaningless to you; but at the very least, come up with something that can't be easily checked.

"SC doesn't [yet] have planets."

Well, the gaming journalists that were able to check it out themselves seem to have a different opinion.

It is not in the current Alpha 2.6.1 version for us players to test. But THAT is only a matter of time.

What YOU have done is create an Alpha development version game called "Line of Defense" that crashes 74 times in 6 hours of playtime according to the international gaming press. I would not call that an "I've done it."

Have fun

Kefo · February 2017

Erillion said:

No one said anything about Guiness Book of World Records verifying anything about Sandi Gardiner.

Have fun

You did when I asked you for proof of Sandi's marketing credentials and you told me the Guinness book of world records.

Erillion · February 2017

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

As for your claims and blogs - it is very enlightening to see YOUR claims examined more closely:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart/comments/4yfyi2/drama_megathread_2016_revision/
At which point your narrative falls apart when your propaganda collides with facts at high speed.

Have fun

I like these ones better:

All Derek Smart's blogs outlining why Star Citizen is an unmitigated scam

And these are my all-time favorites:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/14715-CIG-Employees-Talk-Star-Citizen-and-the-State-of-the-Company
Inside the Troubled Development of Star Citizen
The 24-Year Feud That Has Dogged Star Citizen (English translation of “Star Crisis” article in Swedish LEVEL mag, June 2016)
Who Are the Star Citizen Superbackers? (re-print of an August 2016 article)
What Happened to Star Marine, Star Citizen’s Missing Module
What to Make of Star Citizen (added on 09/30)

And again:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart/comments/4yfyi2/drama_megathread_2016_revision/

Self citing is not proof, my dear self proclaimed Internet Warlord.

Have fun

PS:

Still fighting against those dastardly German Video card drivers ? Which according to you caused those 74 crashes? That even the manufacturer says are no different than the english version video card drivers . You should know. You asked them ;-)

Erillion · February 2017

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

No one said anything about Guiness Book of World Records verifying anything about Sandi Gardiner.

Have fun

You did when I asked you for proof of Sandi's marketing credentials and you told me the Guinness book of world records.

I said that her success in getting 143 M$ was verfied by GBWR, which have confirmed CIG's numbers several times now.

I did not say anything about GBWR verifying Sandi's Marketing credentials.

Have fun

CrazKanuk · February 2017

Kefo said:

CrazKanuk said:

Hey, I'm fine with that, but it's when objectivity leaves the building that it just becomes bait (which much of your points are). Since we just reached 1, why don't you ask DS how long you should continue raising funds. He's been doing it longer than CR and his game is still in development, and has been for several years more than SC. Perfect example of how adding context to your argument actually creates perspective.

The difficulty with your post isn't that you ask questions, it's that you continually move goal posts and, additionally, provide no context for what "acceptable" is. Without that, any answer is in constant flux. This isn't just for you, though, it's a question for the larger gaming community and it's something that is problematic only because of crowdfunding. Additionally, it's only become problematic because of transparency. There are other similar games *cough cough* which don't provide such numbers, so you'd never know whether they're making a killing or whether they're drowning.

That being said, giving you the benefit of the doubt, long, multi-point posts are difficult to manage at the best of times, so it's entirely possible that the moving of goal posts is only a product of you clarifying your original question. To that end, you should be able to appreciate how some may feel fatigued after answering the same questions on a weekly basis for the past year and a half. Honestly, SC has had more patches in the past year and a half than the haters have had new, valid arguments.

EDIT: I will say that I don't know if this reached 1 organically or because @Erillion taunted, but I'll leave that up to others to decide.

That being said, Derek, the question was to list a released game to have more bugs than SC Alpha, so in that regard he's not wrong. However, AGAIN adding context, there are a plethora of games which have/had more bugs at release than what SC does right now. The question just attempts to put someone on the spot. The counter to that is there are, actually, no metrics published metrics to say which is buggier anyway. A game could have a major bug a launch which makes it appear to be buggier, when it actually has fewer defects per kloc than something else. So, yeah, the question and answer are both kind of baity.

I never attempted to move the goalposts. Perhaps it's as you said me clarifying my questions made it seem that way but that's not who I am. I did provide context on the nepotism question when I said companies tend to hire based on past experience. I asked for something showing experience prior to working at CIG that dealt with marketing and got the usual run around lol.

I broke it down into points to make it easier to read since replying within the reply would have made this 10x more exhausting to do. I conceded some things when presented with a good argument and didnt push for more. I'm simply asking for proof (something Erillion is always keen to ask for) but so far I haven't seen it.

If the arguments came to a good conclusion then chances are they wouldn't be brought up again. A few have died on the vine because of things released or not released. Also some of my questions were just specific to this thread so I don't think there should be any fatigue to answering them.

This is why I like your replies because they actually address things in a straight forward manner as opposed to trying to twist things around so much the original point gets lost in the mass of replies. If only other people could just do what you do these threads wouldn't grow as large as they do lol.

I don't think you're right. I think that answers have had good answers in the past yet seem to come back up, not specifically pointing to you on that.

I'm assuming your first point is wrt Sandi? Being a Marketing VP? Honestly, I didn't read that bit, but I'm just assuming based on the rant on the previous page that's what you're talking about. I might burst into flames when I say this, but he's right! The correct answer to your question is why the fuck does it matter? If we had to create a list of companies that hired relatives we'd probably have to start a new Internet to hold it. I work at one, and the last place I worked it was the same. The one thing I wouldn't agree with from the previous page is the assumption that nothing was done. Again, we don't really know what she's done. She could be brilliant, she could be a donkey. That being said, I think that dumbing it down to "paying extra to get listed at the top of the listings" is actually pretty shallow. The correct answer is that I don't know what the fuck marketers do! I will say that Sandi isn't solely responsible for CIGs success. In fact, if she was responsible for the day-to-day of her department I'd be disappointed. She's obviously hired good people. I think if she was claiming responsibility for all the success that's pretty eco-maniacal and I'm not sure how two people could fit in their house. Hopefully faulted ceilings?

Thanks!!! I think that the problem we've got today is people feel like you've got to pick a side. There are plenty of problems with CIG and SC. Are they resolved? I have no idea!!!!! Has anyone actually asked the big homerun questions? Noooooo, lol. Fuck, @Turrican187 had mentioned once about static vs dynamic/PG animations and I was like "fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu" because I had just seen a SM video where the animations looked worse than Madden. So that was like a big question, and I even threw out the idea of asking the question during a live stream they were doing, but it never got asked. Would it have been answered? Who really knows. In the end, the questions like "Where is that game they were going to make for $6 million?" or "What about when they said it would be out in 2014?" just throw up walls of text spouting off the same shit and it's like a nebulous cloud of BS where actual, good questions get lost.

dsmart · February 2017

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

sgel said:

Erillion said:

--> Yes, the Alpha so far is tiny to what the complete Persistent Universe will be. But it is already larger and more complex than many fully launched games out there. And it has also less bugs than many fully launched games out ther ;-)

What do you mean by larger? Could you name a few games that are smaller than the SC alpha? Could you name some released games that have more bugs than the SC alpha?

>>> name a few games that are smaller than the SC Alpha >>>> About two thirds of the games on Steam are smaller than the SC Alpha in my opinion and my experience.
>>>>Released games that have more bugs than the SC Alpha ? >>> Well, "Battlecruiser 3000AD" comes to my mind ;-)

Have fun

I know you can't help yourself because defending the Star Citizen scam is a full-time job.

But comparing the bug-fest that is a $142 million tech demo, to an INDIE game from 1996 (FROM 21 YEARS AGO) is always good for a laugh.

You guys can't go a few posts without somehow dragging me or my games into your nonsense.

I have compared a game in Alpha development (called Star Citizen) with a released game (Battlecruiser 3000 AD) that was so much a bug-fest that the gaming press at that time called it (Gamespot, 17th December 1996):
"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/battlecruiser-3000-ad-review/1900-2538148/

Have fun

Yet somehow, after 21 years, you've missed the hundreds of games that came after and which were even worse; and unlike BC3K - were never actually fixed to any working condition.

Nice try.

Fixed ?
I made the mistake of buying BC3000AD out of a 2 €-old-games-bin many years after it was released.
It was STILL the bugfest that Gamespot described many years earlier.

Have fun

That's your problem because the game was fixed and re-released for free. Interplay (one of the leading publishers at the time) played it, approved and funded the marketing of the sequel that became Battlecruiser 3000AD v2. That was in 1998.

Over the years the Battlecruiser series morphed into Universal Combat series after going through several publishers who liked it enough to publish it.

Nice try.

ps: stop changing the subject. deflecting discussions about the Star Citizen scam, isn't going to make it any better or less scammy.

MaxBacon · February 2017

discussions about the Star Citizen scam

Image: https://cdn.meme.am/instances/50375756.jpg

Erillion · February 2017

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

sgel said:

Erillion said:

--> Yes, the Alpha so far is tiny to what the complete Persistent Universe will be. But it is already larger and more complex than many fully launched games out there. And it has also less bugs than many fully launched games out ther ;-)

What do you mean by larger? Could you name a few games that are smaller than the SC alpha? Could you name some released games that have more bugs than the SC alpha?

>>> name a few games that are smaller than the SC Alpha >>>> About two thirds of the games on Steam are smaller than the SC Alpha in my opinion and my experience.
>>>>Released games that have more bugs than the SC Alpha ? >>> Well, "Battlecruiser 3000AD" comes to my mind ;-)

Have fun

I know you can't help yourself because defending the Star Citizen scam is a full-time job.

But comparing the bug-fest that is a $142 million tech demo, to an INDIE game from 1996 (FROM 21 YEARS AGO) is always good for a laugh.

You guys can't go a few posts without somehow dragging me or my games into your nonsense.

I have compared a game in Alpha development (called Star Citizen) with a released game (Battlecruiser 3000 AD) that was so much a bug-fest that the gaming press at that time called it (Gamespot, 17th December 1996):
"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/battlecruiser-3000-ad-review/1900-2538148/

Have fun

Yet somehow, after 21 years, you've missed the hundreds of games that came after and which were even worse; and unlike BC3K - were never actually fixed to any working condition.

Nice try.

Fixed ?
I made the mistake of buying BC3000AD out of a 2 €-old-games-bin many years after it was released.
It was STILL the bugfest that Gamespot described many years earlier.

Have fun

That's your problem because the game was fixed and re-released for free. Interplay (one of the leading publishers at the time) played it, approved and funded the marketing of the sequel that became Battlecruiser 3000AD v2. That was in 1998.

Over the years the Battlecruiser series morphed into Universal Combat series after going through several publishers who liked it enough to publish it.

Nice try.

ps: stop changing the subject. deflecting discussions about the Star Citizen scam, isn't going to make it any better or less scammy.

>>> stop changing the subject <<<

May i remind you that you hopped into this thread at that point where i was asked to name a bug ridden game (and i said: Battlecruiser3000AD ... which was bug ridden enough to be called "...will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable piece of software ever released...")

So that IS the subject.

Unless you **gasp** want to talk about the REAL Topic of this thread - which is the Star Citizen Valentine free fly event.

Have fun

dsmart · February 2017

That's your problem because the game was fixed and re-released for free. Interplay (one of the leading publishers at the time) played it, approved and funded the marketing of the sequel that became Battlecruiser 3000AD v2. That was in 1998.

Over the years the Battlecruiser series morphed into Universal Combat series after going through several publishers who liked it enough to publish it.

Nice try.

ps: stop changing the subject. deflecting discussions about the Star Citizen scam, isn't going to make it any better or less scammy.

>>> stop changing the subject <<<
May i remind you that you hopped into this thread at that point where i was asked to name a bug ridden game (and i said: Battlecruiser3000AD ... which was bug ridden enough to be called "...will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable piece of software ever released...")
So that IS the subject.
Unless you **gasp** want to talk about the REAL Topic of this thread - which is the Star Citizen Valentine free fly event.

Have fun

Not true. And you're still doing the revisionist history thing you guys are good at. Nobody asked you that. And even so, through 21 years of games released in worse condition, you deferred to BC3K.

And no, it's not the subject. YOU made it the subject. The subject is Star Citizen. Sez so right there in the thread subject and is what everyone has been discussing. Until you invoked BC3K, then me.

Yeah, you think we're idiots.

Erillion · February 2017

dsmart said:

That's your problem because the game was fixed and re-released for free. Interplay (one of the leading publishers at the time) played it, approved and funded the marketing of the sequel that became Battlecruiser 3000AD v2. That was in 1998.

Over the years the Battlecruiser series morphed into Universal Combat series after going through several publishers who liked it enough to publish it.

Nice try.

ps: stop changing the subject. deflecting discussions about the Star Citizen scam, isn't going to make it any better or less scammy.

>>> stop changing the subject <<<
May i remind you that you hopped into this thread at that point where i was asked to name a bug ridden game (and i said: Battlecruiser3000AD ... which was bug ridden enough to be called "...will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable piece of software ever released...")
So that IS the subject.
Unless you **gasp** want to talk about the REAL Topic of this thread - which is the Star Citizen Valentine free fly event.

Have fun

Not true. And you're still doing the revisionist history thing you guys are good at. Nobody asked you that. And even so, through 21 years of games released in worse condition, you deferred to BC3K.

And no, it's not the subject. YOU made it the subject. The subject is Star Citizen. Sez so right there in the thread subject and is what everyone has been discussing. Until you invoked BC3K, then me.

Yeah, you think we're idiots.

Is that a trick sentence ? ;-)

I will not comment your last line.

Have fun

Erillion · February 2017

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

@rpmcmurphy
For many of the things you mentioned there ARE known metrics (e.g. playtime, Login numbers, financial contributions etc.). So actually i DOES tell you if you want to know.
There are also public statements from dev team members on numbers. And other numbers have been verified by external sources (like Guiness Book of World Records team).

Have fun

That's rubbish. The only thing Guinness ever certified, was it being the largest crowd-funded game at the time. Nothing else.

The only metrics we gleam from public sources are the funding amounts. Which aren't even accurate seeing as they don't take refunds, loans, investors into account.

Citizens metrics. Unverified Rubbish

Fan metrics: Unverified Rubbish

Sales metrics: Unverified Rubbish

You seem to have failed to check that its AGAIN in the Guiness Book of World Records.
With higher numbers.
You can make an account at the GBWR Website, log in and check the numbers yourself.
And according to the GBWR rules these numbers have to be verified. So CIGs numbers w.r.t. GBWR have been verified by an external Party.

Have fun

I have an account. What you said is rubbish. And the way Guinness works is that they go from numbers provided to them. So people with 5 accounts is still 5 accounts, instead of 1 unique account.

BTW

Why would anyone need 5 accounts on the Guiness Book website to verify world record numbers ??

Have fun

dsmart · February 2017

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

@rpmcmurphy
For many of the things you mentioned there ARE known metrics (e.g. playtime, Login numbers, financial contributions etc.). So actually i DOES tell you if you want to know.
There are also public statements from dev team members on numbers. And other numbers have been verified by external sources (like Guiness Book of World Records team).

Have fun

That's rubbish. The only thing Guinness ever certified, was it being the largest crowd-funded game at the time. Nothing else.

The only metrics we gleam from public sources are the funding amounts. Which aren't even accurate seeing as they don't take refunds, loans, investors into account.

Citizens metrics. Unverified Rubbish

Fan metrics: Unverified Rubbish

Sales metrics: Unverified Rubbish

You seem to have failed to check that its AGAIN in the Guiness Book of World Records.
With higher numbers.
You can make an account at the GBWR Website, log in and check the numbers yourself.
And according to the GBWR rules these numbers have to be verified. So CIGs numbers w.r.t. GBWR have been verified by an external Party.

Have fun

I have an account. What you said is rubbish. And the way Guinness works is that they go from numbers provided to them. So people with 5 accounts is still 5 accounts, instead of 1 unique account.

BTW

Why would anyone need 5 accounts on the Guiness Book website to verify world record numbers ??

Have fun

Pay attention. The comment had nothing to do with GBWR. It was about the claimed citizen count. But I'm sure you already knew that.

CrazKanuk · February 2017

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

Fixed ?
I made the mistake of buying BC3000AD out of a 2 €-old-games-bin many years after it was released.
It was STILL the bugfest that Gamespot described many years earlier.

Have fun

That's your problem because the game was fixed and re-released for free. Interplay (one of the leading publishers at the time) played it, approved and funded the marketing of the sequel that became Battlecruiser 3000AD v2. That was in 1998.

Over the years the Battlecruiser series morphed into Universal Combat series after going through several publishers who liked it enough to publish it.

Nice try.

ps: stop changing the subject. deflecting discussions about the Star Citizen scam, isn't going to make it any better or less scammy.

I'm not sure why you continue to insist that SC is a scam. There isn't any proof of that, and never has been despite people saying it for a couple years now. There are obvious complaints that resurface continuously, but nothing with any real logic or intelligent thought behind it, yes even your walls of text. Just like everyone else, you started out with some valid arguments, but then slowly became less and less plausible as time went on. Go take a look over your own posts and evaluate where they are now, and the basis of your arguments, versus back then. It's actually pretty enlightening. Same text, reduced relevance.

Erillion · February 2017

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

@rpmcmurphy
For many of the things you mentioned there ARE known metrics (e.g. playtime, Login numbers, financial contributions etc.). So actually i DOES tell you if you want to know.
There are also public statements from dev team members on numbers. And other numbers have been verified by external sources (like Guiness Book of World Records team).

Have fun

That's rubbish. The only thing Guinness ever certified, was it being the largest crowd-funded game at the time. Nothing else.

The only metrics we gleam from public sources are the funding amounts. Which aren't even accurate seeing as they don't take refunds, loans, investors into account.

Citizens metrics. Unverified Rubbish

Fan metrics: Unverified Rubbish

Sales metrics: Unverified Rubbish

You seem to have failed to check that its AGAIN in the Guiness Book of World Records.
With higher numbers.
You can make an account at the GBWR Website, log in and check the numbers yourself.
And according to the GBWR rules these numbers have to be verified. So CIGs numbers w.r.t. GBWR have been verified by an external Party.

Have fun

I have an account. What you said is rubbish. And the way Guinness works is that they go from numbers provided to them. So people with 5 accounts is still 5 accounts, instead of 1 unique account.

BTW

Why would anyone need 5 accounts on the Guiness Book website to verify world record numbers ??

Have fun

Pay attention. The comment had nothing to do with GBWR. It was about the claimed citizen count. But I'm sure you already knew that.

You should pay attention and scroll up. I talked about an account on the Guiness Book Website.

Have fun

rpmcmurphy · February 2017

Amazing.

They say the man's opinion is worthless and then spend all day arguing with him.
That's really strange.

Erillion · February 2017

CrazKanuk said:

dsmart said:

Erillion said:

Fixed ?
I made the mistake of buying BC3000AD out of a 2 €-old-games-bin many years after it was released.
It was STILL the bugfest that Gamespot described many years earlier.

Have fun

That's your problem because the game was fixed and re-released for free. Interplay (one of the leading publishers at the time) played it, approved and funded the marketing of the sequel that became Battlecruiser 3000AD v2. That was in 1998.

Over the years the Battlecruiser series morphed into Universal Combat series after going through several publishers who liked it enough to publish it.

Nice try.

ps: stop changing the subject. deflecting discussions about the Star Citizen scam, isn't going to make it any better or less scammy.

I'm not sure why you continue to insist that SC is a scam. There isn't any proof of that, and never has been despite people saying it for a couple years now. There are obvious complaints that resurface continuously, but nothing with any real logic or intelligent thought behind it, yes even your walls of text. Just like everyone else, you started out with some valid arguments, but then slowly became less and less plausible as time went on. Go take a look over your own posts and evaluate where they are now, and the basis of your arguments, versus back then. It's actually pretty enlightening. Same text, reduced relevance.

*** pssst ****

The Swedish Mafia is behind that Star Citizen scam / money laundering scheme.

It MUST be true. The Smarty said so on the Internet!

Have fun

Erillion · February 2017

rpmcmurphy said:

Amazing.

They say the man's opinion is worthless and then spend all day arguing with him.
That's really strange.

I enjoy it. He is funny.

Have fun

Howdy, Stranger!

Star Citizen - Valentines Day Free Fly Event (with multi-crew ship)

Comments

"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."

"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."

"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."

"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Star Citizen - Valentines Day Free Fly Event (with multi-crew ship)

Comments

"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."

"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."

"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."

"...It will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released. ...."