"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
"may even influence Chris Roberts direction if he can be convinced "
This is the kind of thing I mean - in the same sentence you state backers have full control, then state they MAY be able to convince CR.
Your first point was simple and reasonable...this second point is a nonsense and comes across to me like you just wanted to "win" the whole argument.
Please try not to conflate collective FINANCIAL CONTROL over the entire project, that project being Chris Roberts vision of the game. With full CONTROL OVER THE VISION, backers may influence direction of that vision if deemed a sound decision to make, but individual backers do not hold all power to completely control direction of the vision like a single investor may. I feel you are being disingenuous in suggesting you can't understand that difference and perhaps intentionally do not want to.
I didn't, and no I wasn't being disingenuous. My point is that you made two conflicting statements (that's definitely how I read it). The first one was an absolute statement "Full control". Full control is full control or it is not. The second was "may influence".
Now you come back to qualify that into: 1. financial vs. vision control 2. Individual vs collective backer influence
But it always sounds stronger (in one's head) to make simple, absolute statements...statements that then bite you in the ass.
Its nothing personal, we all do it, but when you get called out, just admit, restate/requalify and move on. It's not going to make your opinions any less valid in the future, and clinging to the original extreme statement via all kinds of mental gymnastics doesn't make you any more so.
What you refer to here is something I suffer from all the time, but it is not as you suggest some strong statement that I then need to amend to make sense of my position. It is more that I assume everyone is able to follow the simple steps of logic without overly complicating the information. Clarification for the obtuse is not a need for reliance on mental gymnastics
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
"may even influence Chris Roberts direction if he can be convinced "
This is the kind of thing I mean - in the same sentence you state backers have full control, then state they MAY be able to convince CR.
Your first point was simple and reasonable...this second point is a nonsense and comes across to me like you just wanted to "win" the whole argument.
Please try not to conflate collective FINANCIAL CONTROL over the entire project, that project being Chris Roberts vision of the game. With full CONTROL OVER THE VISION, backers may influence direction of that vision if deemed a sound decision to make, but individual backers do not hold all power to completely control direction of the vision like a single investor may. I feel you are being disingenuous in suggesting you can't understand that difference and perhaps intentionally do not want to.
I didn't, and no I wasn't being disingenuous. My point is that you made two conflicting statements (that's definitely how I read it). The first one was an absolute statement "Full control". Full control is full control or it is not. The second was "may influence".
Now you come back to qualify that into: 1. financial vs. vision control 2. Individual vs collective backer influence
But it always sounds stronger (in one's head) to make simple, absolute statements...statements that then bite you in the ass.
Its nothing personal, we all do it, but when you get called out, just admit, restate/requalify and move on. It's not going to make your opinions any less valid in the future, and clinging to the original extreme statement via all kinds of mental gymnastics doesn't make you any more so.
What you refer to here is something I suffer from all the time, but it is not as you suggest some strong statement that I then need to amend to make sense of my position. It is more that I assume everyone is able to follow the simple steps of logic without overly complicating the information. Clarification for the obtuse is not a need for reliance on mental gymnastics
Drop the insults please, it's obnoxious behaviour. Failure to communicate is usually a fault of the message, not the reader.
Unless, of course, they just want to "win" an argument...
You made a clarifying post later on that cleared up these issues - in my opinion my comment about the earlier post stands.
In any case I've made my point, you've replied, I'm going to move on now.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
"may even influence Chris Roberts direction if he can be convinced "
This is the kind of thing I mean - in the same sentence you state backers have full control, then state they MAY be able to convince CR.
Your first point was simple and reasonable...this second point is a nonsense and comes across to me like you just wanted to "win" the whole argument.
Please try not to conflate collective FINANCIAL CONTROL over the entire project, that project being Chris Roberts vision of the game. With full CONTROL OVER THE VISION, backers may influence direction of that vision if deemed a sound decision to make, but individual backers do not hold all power to completely control direction of the vision like a single investor may. I feel you are being disingenuous in suggesting you can't understand that difference and perhaps intentionally do not want to.
I didn't, and no I wasn't being disingenuous. My point is that you made two conflicting statements (that's definitely how I read it). The first one was an absolute statement "Full control". Full control is full control or it is not. The second was "may influence".
Now you come back to qualify that into: 1. financial vs. vision control 2. Individual vs collective backer influence
But it always sounds stronger (in one's head) to make simple, absolute statements...statements that then bite you in the ass.
Its nothing personal, we all do it, but when you get called out, just admit, restate/requalify and move on. It's not going to make your opinions any less valid in the future, and clinging to the original extreme statement via all kinds of mental gymnastics doesn't make you any more so.
What you refer to here is something I suffer from all the time, but it is not as you suggest some strong statement that I then need to amend to make sense of my position. It is more that I assume everyone is able to follow the simple steps of logic without overly complicating the information. Clarification for the obtuse is not a need for reliance on mental gymnastics
Drop the insults please, it's obnoxious behaviour. Failure to communicate is usually a fault of the message, not the reader.
Unless, of course, they just want to "win" an argument...
You made a clarifying post later on that cleared up these issues - in my opinion my comment about the earlier post stands.
In any case I've made my point, you've replied, I'm going to move on now.
Old argument - information often shown to be incorrect.
Chris Roberts alone/personally has worked on Star Citizen in 2011 (and most likely even longer). Together with others he has worked on it since 2012 (the company was founded in April 2012 --> https://cloudimperiumgames.com/about ).
See about half a dozen threads here about that topic and why that particular Wikipedia entry is incorrect. Source [3] is an article, not a CIG quote - and contradicts the official homepage. "Star Citizen Reaches $141 Million in Crowdfunding". Game Rant. January 2017.
Kickstarter launched Oct 2012, CIG was created April 2012. That is 6 -7 months to create a kickstarter page and a video. This would have been one or two people building up into a small team of 10 over this time. If you want to believe there was some unfunded team project going on before this date going back as far as 2011(or even 2010 as some want to claim) costing Chris Roberts millions of his own money then I really can't stop you.
What does help though is taking the official dates as shown by CIG. It has been 5 years, they just had their 5th anniversary. I will let you know when it is their 6th (hint...october!).
Old argument - information often shown to be incorrect.
Chris Roberts alone/personally has worked on Star Citizen in 2011 (and most likely even longer). Together with others he has worked on it since 2012 (the company was founded in April 2012 --> https://cloudimperiumgames.com/about ).
See about half a dozen threads here about that topic and why that particular Wikipedia entry is incorrect. Source [3] is an article, not a CIG quote - and contradicts the official homepage. "Star Citizen Reaches $141 Million in Crowdfunding". Game Rant. January 2017.
Have fun
Technically also incorrect if we go by what Crytek is saying and they created all that work for the Kickstarter. So depending on the outcome of the lawsuit we might just all have to agree to 6 years and add a caveat that Roberts is a lying piece of crap to that sentence lol
Old argument - information often shown to be incorrect.
Chris Roberts alone/personally has worked on Star Citizen in 2011 (and most likely even longer). Together with others he has worked on it since 2012 (the company was founded in April 2012 --> https://cloudimperiumgames.com/about ).
See about half a dozen threads here about that topic and why that particular Wikipedia entry is incorrect. Source [3] is an article, not a CIG quote - and contradicts the official homepage. "Star Citizen Reaches $141 Million in Crowdfunding". Game Rant. January 2017.
Have fun
Technically also incorrect if we go by what Crytek is saying and they created all that work for the Kickstarter. So depending on the outcome of the lawsuit we might just all have to agree to 6 years and add a caveat that Roberts is a lying piece of crap to that sentence lol
The work from April to October, that is when the team worked on the kickstarter 6-7 months. That is still 5 years. Are CryTek saying different?
I am not sure how anyone is even meant to take work for a kickstarter as serious work towards the project though? October is they day they got the greenlight to start building up a real team to start working on the game. No one can argue if's and buts around that, it may not have been a big team from the start and taken time to gain momentum, but that is still part of it.
There is a 'go / no go date' to the project. October 2012.
Old argument - information often shown to be incorrect.
Chris Roberts alone/personally has worked on Star Citizen in 2011 (and most likely even longer). Together with others he has worked on it since 2012 (the company was founded in April 2012 --> https://cloudimperiumgames.com/about ).
See about half a dozen threads here about that topic and why that particular Wikipedia entry is incorrect. Source [3] is an article, not a CIG quote - and contradicts the official homepage. "Star Citizen Reaches $141 Million in Crowdfunding". Game Rant. January 2017.
Have fun
Technically also incorrect if we go by what Crytek is saying and they created all that work for the Kickstarter. So depending on the outcome of the lawsuit we might just all have to agree to 6 years and add a caveat that Roberts is a lying piece of crap to that sentence lol
The work from April to October, that is when the team worked on the kickstarter 6-7 months. That is still 5 years. Are CryTek saying different?
I don’t have the lawsuit in front of me but they are saying they invested significant time and effort in creating the videos and proofs of concepts for the Kickstarter. People here say it was Croberts who did the work but depending on the outcome we will have to wait and see what’s correct
As someone who is just a tourist in the Star Citizen drama, I was under the impression that the release of this 3.0 was going to shut up everyone. Now it seems that those who made those "hints" changed their minds.
Believe it or not, it was the haters who brought up that whole "3.0 the Jesus Patch" to polarize the whole thing.
3.0 is a major patch, the biggest patch the game has gotten actually, and that is what was promoted. But those who were acting up like 3.0 would not come with the issues the alpha implies, were falling on their own unrealistic expectations.
I myself expected was better servers, that didn't come to happen, they did increase the pop from 24 to 50 but the major point was to stop bottlenecking the frame rates so much.
It's not even the lack of content argument, 3.0 with better servers and less breaking bugs (those who force restarts) is all it needs.
Well the company itself brought up 3.0 in emails as a valid reason for them to stop issuing refunds to those requesting them ...
Old argument - information often shown to be incorrect.
Chris Roberts alone/personally has worked on Star Citizen in 2011 (and most likely even longer). Together with others he has worked on it since 2012 (the company was founded in April 2012 --> https://cloudimperiumgames.com/about ).
See about half a dozen threads here about that topic and why that particular Wikipedia entry is incorrect. Source [3] is an article, not a CIG quote - and contradicts the official homepage. "Star Citizen Reaches $141 Million in Crowdfunding". Game Rant. January 2017.
Have fun
Technically also incorrect if we go by what Crytek is saying and they created all that work for the Kickstarter. So depending on the outcome of the lawsuit we might just all have to agree to 6 years and add a caveat that Roberts is a lying piece of crap to that sentence lol
The work from April to October, that is when the team worked on the kickstarter 6-7 months. That is still 5 years. Are CryTek saying different?
I don’t have the lawsuit in front of me but they are saying they invested significant time and effort in creating the videos and proofs of concepts for the Kickstarter. People here say it was Croberts who did the work but depending on the outcome we will have to wait and see what’s correct
Thing is, proof of concepts are often thrown away after they've done their job and got the project the go-ahead.
So that would be 5 years of development towards the game proper.
When you start, you are in the first year of development, so putting us into the 6th year of actual game development, which is how I read the post from Elsabolts.
Old argument - information often shown to be incorrect.
Chris Roberts alone/personally has worked on Star Citizen in 2011 (and most likely even longer). Together with others he has worked on it since 2012 (the company was founded in April 2012 --> https://cloudimperiumgames.com/about ).
See about half a dozen threads here about that topic and why that particular Wikipedia entry is incorrect. Source [3] is an article, not a CIG quote - and contradicts the official homepage. "Star Citizen Reaches $141 Million in Crowdfunding". Game Rant. January 2017.
Have fun
Technically also incorrect if we go by what Crytek is saying and they created all that work for the Kickstarter. So depending on the outcome of the lawsuit we might just all have to agree to 6 years and add a caveat that Roberts is a lying piece of crap to that sentence lol
The work from April to October, that is when the team worked on the kickstarter 6-7 months. That is still 5 years. Are CryTek saying different?
I don’t have the lawsuit in front of me but they are saying they invested significant time and effort in creating the videos and proofs of concepts for the Kickstarter. People here say it was Croberts who did the work but depending on the outcome we will have to wait and see what’s correct
When you start, you are in the first year of development, so putting us into the 6th year of actual game development, which is how I read the post from Elsabolts.
How does starting in Oct 2012 put us in 6th year of development? I don't understand. Does 6 years in time not have to pass first to reach 6th year of actual game development?
Old argument - information often shown to be incorrect.
Chris Roberts alone/personally has worked on Star Citizen in 2011 (and most likely even longer). Together with others he has worked on it since 2012 (the company was founded in April 2012 --> https://cloudimperiumgames.com/about ).
See about half a dozen threads here about that topic and why that particular Wikipedia entry is incorrect. Source [3] is an article, not a CIG quote - and contradicts the official homepage. "Star Citizen Reaches $141 Million in Crowdfunding". Game Rant. January 2017.
Have fun
Technically also incorrect if we go by what Crytek is saying and they created all that work for the Kickstarter. So depending on the outcome of the lawsuit we might just all have to agree to 6 years and add a caveat that Roberts is a lying piece of crap to that sentence lol
The work from April to October, that is when the team worked on the kickstarter 6-7 months. That is still 5 years. Are CryTek saying different?
I don’t have the lawsuit in front of me but they are saying they invested significant time and effort in creating the videos and proofs of concepts for the Kickstarter. People here say it was Croberts who did the work but depending on the outcome we will have to wait and see what’s correct
When you start, you are in the first year of development, so putting us into the 6th year of actual game development, which is how I read the post from Elsabolts.
How does starting in Oct 2012 put us in 6th year of development? I don't understand. Does 6 years in time not have to pass first to reach 6th year of actual game development?
No.
6th year is the time between the end of year 5 and beginning of year 7. After 6 years have passed we're already on 7th year of development.
Old argument - information often shown to be incorrect.
Chris Roberts alone/personally has worked on Star Citizen in 2011 (and most likely even longer). Together with others he has worked on it since 2012 (the company was founded in April 2012 --> https://cloudimperiumgames.com/about ).
See about half a dozen threads here about that topic and why that particular Wikipedia entry is incorrect. Source [3] is an article, not a CIG quote - and contradicts the official homepage. "Star Citizen Reaches $141 Million in Crowdfunding". Game Rant. January 2017.
Have fun
Technically also incorrect if we go by what Crytek is saying and they created all that work for the Kickstarter. So depending on the outcome of the lawsuit we might just all have to agree to 6 years and add a caveat that Roberts is a lying piece of crap to that sentence lol
The work from April to October, that is when the team worked on the kickstarter 6-7 months. That is still 5 years. Are CryTek saying different?
I don’t have the lawsuit in front of me but they are saying they invested significant time and effort in creating the videos and proofs of concepts for the Kickstarter. People here say it was Croberts who did the work but depending on the outcome we will have to wait and see what’s correct
When you start, you are in the first year of development, so putting us into the 6th year of actual game development, which is how I read the post from Elsabolts.
How does starting in Oct 2012 put us in 6th year of development? I don't understand. Does 6 years in time not have to pass first to reach 6th year of actual game development?
No.
6th year is the time between the end of year 5 and beginning of year 7. After 6 years have passed we're already on 7th year of development.
Ah so 1st year of development is day 1 and following year, not that a year has passed. Understood. I think he must have had a badly written message.
Sure they are! If your point is Star Citizen isn't complete yet. This is big news to everyone I am sure and well worth every ones time
Well that is his point, SC isn't complete yet, nor does he feel they've made much progress towards being complete.
When do they plan to launch then? Until you have at least an estimate, all criticism regarding the lack of progress or delay in delivery is valid.
It does not matter what is accomplished to date, only how much work/time is left to reach a MVP state so players can experience the entire game as it is has been promised to be.
BCBully - Even more even in alpha it still should feel good. The core game needs to be fun. It could just be OP he asked about quests after all...
at the the same time if the core felt good, flying would be a joy. Dog fighting would be insane because the flying is good. You know?
This concept that backers have FULL control is the very definition of BS.
I think the thing gets people like you so angry,
What are "People like me"? and why do you think I would be angry?
I simply voiced an opinion and gave an example to back it up. So because my opinion doesn't match yours then I must be angry and a part of some group of people you have obviously given a label to?
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
What does that mean? If I can get enough of the backers to support having all the ships painted pink, will they do it? I doubt it. So how much control do the backers really have? Sure they could stop buying ships but then they would lose their perceived advantages when the game finally launches.
This concept that backers have FULL control is the very definition of BS. When backers make a poll on the official forum that CIG doesnt like, it gets locked. An example is when backers did a poll about allowing refunds.
25 percent of backers felt refunds should be available but CIG closed than locked the thread. Now can you honestly say that those 25% of backers had full control of the project? If they had not locked that thread, could that percentage have been higher?
Having glanced at your post now, i can refer you to a reply that already clarifies that earlier -
"backers may influence direction of that vision if deemed a sound decision to make, but individual backers do not hold all power to completely control direction of the vision"
IF DEEMED A SOUND DECISION, backers are not game developers and mostly do not hold the skill set to make correct choices. We are backing Chris Roberts vision, not 10yr old john and his vision. However backers, as an individual or a collective can make their case and after evaluation, if deemed to be a sound decision then things can be altered. Ultimately though if backers are not happy with direction, as a collective they can stop supporting the project and it will end.
But that is not what Erillion said. He said collectively backers have FULL control. Not financial control or control based on good decisions, he said FULL control which thanks to your post has been that he was wrong.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
What does that mean? If I can get enough of the backers to support having all the ships painted pink, will they do it? I doubt it. So how much control do the backers really have? Sure they could stop buying ships but then they would lose their perceived advantages when the game finally launches.
This concept that backers have FULL control is the very definition of BS. When backers make a poll on the official forum that CIG doesnt like, it gets locked. An example is when backers did a poll about allowing refunds.
25 percent of backers felt refunds should be available but CIG closed than locked the thread. Now can you honestly say that those 25% of backers had full control of the project? If they had not locked that thread, could that percentage have been higher?
Having glanced at your post now, i can refer you to a reply that already clarifies that earlier -
"backers may influence direction of that vision if deemed a sound decision to make, but individual backers do not hold all power to completely control direction of the vision"
IF DEEMED A SOUND DECISION, backers are not game developers and mostly do not hold the skill set to make correct choices. We are backing Chris Roberts vision, not 10yr old john and his vision. However backers, as an individual or a collective can make their case and after evaluation, if deemed to be a sound decision then things can be altered. Ultimately though if backers are not happy with direction, as a collective they can stop supporting the project and it will end.
But that is not what Erillion said. He said collectively backers have FULL control. Not financial control or control based on good decisions, he said FULL control which thanks to your post has been that he was wrong.
No point even trying to show how wrong Orinori, Maxbacon, or Erillion can be, and are, they will either ignore it, or play the straw man game.
They all agree with each other, and all have been shown to be wrong.
Orinori said:
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit.
Hence backers control the entire project
MaxBacon said:
This is absolutely true.
Erillion said:
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
THIS
Chris Roberts has shown them to be wrong, with his claim that if funding was to stop, they would have still enough money.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
What does that mean? If I can get enough of the backers to support having all the ships painted pink, will they do it? I doubt it. So how much control do the backers really have? Sure they could stop buying ships but then they would lose their perceived advantages when the game finally launches.
This concept that backers have FULL control is the very definition of BS. When backers make a poll on the official forum that CIG doesnt like, it gets locked. An example is when backers did a poll about allowing refunds.
25 percent of backers felt refunds should be available but CIG closed than locked the thread. Now can you honestly say that those 25% of backers had full control of the project? If they had not locked that thread, could that percentage have been higher?
Having glanced at your post now, i can refer you to a reply that already clarifies that earlier -
"backers may influence direction of that vision if deemed a sound decision to make, but individual backers do not hold all power to completely control direction of the vision"
IF DEEMED A SOUND DECISION, backers are not game developers and mostly do not hold the skill set to make correct choices. We are backing Chris Roberts vision, not 10yr old john and his vision. However backers, as an individual or a collective can make their case and after evaluation, if deemed to be a sound decision then things can be altered. Ultimately though if backers are not happy with direction, as a collective they can stop supporting the project and it will end.
But that is not what Erillion said. He said collectively backers have FULL control. Not financial control or control based on good decisions, he said FULL control which thanks to your post has been that he was wrong.
No point even trying to show how wrong Orinori, Maxbacon, or Erillion can be, and are, they will either ignore it, or play the straw man game.
They all agree with each other, and all have been shown to be wrong.
Orinori said:
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit.
Hence backers control the entire project
MaxBacon said:
This is absolutely true.
Erillion said:
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
THIS
Chris Roberts has shown them to be wrong, with his claim that if funding was to stop, they would have still enough money.
Which still does not make investors in control as stated. Backers do have some control, I have admitted already that your point was valid and that backers control to shut down the project is now probably a past tense position. Although the threat of discontinuation of funding is bound to make an impact.
Perhaps it might help to read all posts, understand all posts and replies before just posting aggressive tripe. You just look foolish.
"Wing Commander startete am 12. März 1999 in den Vereinigten Staaten und kam am 23. Dezember 1999 in die deutschen Kinos. Bei einem geschätzten Budget von 30 Millionen US-Dollar[5] spielte er in den USA nur 11.578.059 US-Dollar[6] ein und kann somit als kommerzieller Flop bezeichnet werden. Durch die weltweite Vermarktung der Filmrechte sowie die DVD-Veröffentlichung und dem Verkauf der Fernsehrechte und Merchandising-Produkte (u. a. Spielfiguren und Raumschiffe) hat der Film aber nach einiger Zeit doch noch die Gewinnschwelle erreicht. "
"Wing Commander launched on March 12, 1999 in the United States and launched December 23, 1999 in the German cinemas. With an estimated budget of 30 million US dollars it generated in the US only 11,578,059 US dollars [6] and can therefore be described as a commercial flop. Due to the worldwide marketing of the film rights as well as the DVD publication and the sale of the television rights and merchandising products (among other things play figures and spaceships) the film still reached the break even point after some time."
Have fun
Spin that Puppy!
Box office receipts are what's compared, for a reason. Ancillary rights may not go to the folks who financed the film. And aren't generally included in comparisons, as they're another level of statistics to track down as legit. When they do exceptionally well, it's noted. The WC movie was not that.
Also, in Hollywood, breaking even is not the definition of success. Despite how desperately you want to portray the Wing Commander movie as some sort of positive. Money has to be used in projects that lead to profits, otherwise it is just a wasted investment opportunity.
Hey, for fun sometimes, why don't you try to track down who actually financed the Wing Commander movie..... It leads to a series of one-off production and shell companies, as far as I could tell.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Reigning him in was always for the benefit of the investors in order to try to achieve maximum profit in cheapest turn around possible. Reigning in was never and will NEVER be for the benefit of providing the fans of the game a more awesome experience.
No reigning him in was for the benefit of the gamers. Chris Roberts is a thinker and a dreamer which is a great combo when it comes to coming up with new ideas but he needs someone to curb the ambition, which like I said he has admitted to.
When someone is standing over him telling him to stay on task then you get games like wing commander. When he is allowed to run his own game studio then you get ideas that make the studio produce nothing before they realize oh shit we are out of money because we wasted time trying to perfect everything instead of focusing on a few elements and making them shine Or if he’s allowed to direct his own movie then you get crap like the wing commander movie where he was again trying for too much with not enough time and money.
Last time Microsoft bailed his studio out and saved the games he started by cutting out the dreams and paring things down to reality. This time it seems backers are taking the place of Microsoft but unfortunately they can’t remove him from power like MS did
p.s I actually loved the Wing Commander movie and have seen it multiple times. I am an actual Sci Fi fan
Okay, not going to trust your taste in film from now on either.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Chris Roberts has shown them to be wrong, with his claim that if funding was to stop, they would have still enough money.
That does not mean they would be willing to make a stand against their community about something, killing their funding stream, even if they could sustain the development by themselves to finish and release SQ42, then SC.
I find unlikely if it could lead to such consequence, such pressure would not result on them giving in or respond to it in some way. Like they would sacrifice/harm their funding stream just like that, no way mister.
Ah yes, as you are from London ..... it has been many years now that the economic success of a movie primarily was coming from the english speaking countries and/or the first four box office weekends. Worldwide box office, DVD, streaming, blue ray, TV rights, merchandizing form a HUGE part of the lifetime income.
Have fun
What?
Moving the goalposts in a futile attempt to represent all things Roberts as golden.
The WC movie was an utter failure, so bad that Roberts never again directed a movie.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Comments
CIG started work in 2011 so not 6th year but going on 7th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Citizen
MAGA
Unless, of course, they just want to "win" an argument...
You made a clarifying post later on that cleared up these issues - in my opinion my comment about the earlier post stands.
In any case I've made my point, you've replied, I'm going to move on now.
Old argument - information often shown to be incorrect.
Chris Roberts alone/personally has worked on Star Citizen in 2011 (and most likely even longer). Together with others he has worked on it since 2012 (the company was founded in April 2012 --> https://cloudimperiumgames.com/about ).
See about half a dozen threads here about that topic and why that particular Wikipedia entry is incorrect. Source [3] is an article, not a CIG quote - and contradicts the official homepage. "Star Citizen Reaches $141 Million in Crowdfunding". Game Rant. January 2017.
Have fun
Kickstarter launched Oct 2012, CIG was created April 2012.
That is 6 -7 months to create a kickstarter page and a video. This would have been one or two people building up into a small team of 10 over this time. If you want to believe there was some unfunded team project going on before this date going back as far as 2011(or even 2010 as some want to claim) costing Chris Roberts millions of his own money then I really can't stop you.
What does help though is taking the official dates as shown by CIG. It has been 5 years, they just had their 5th anniversary. I will let you know when it is their 6th (hint...october!).
I am not sure how anyone is even meant to take work for a kickstarter as serious work towards the project though? October is they day they got the greenlight to start building up a real team to start working on the game. No one can argue if's and buts around that, it may not have been a big team from the start and taken time to gain momentum, but that is still part of it.
There is a 'go / no go date' to the project. October 2012.
So that would be 5 years of development towards the game proper.
When you start, you are in the first year of development, so putting us into the 6th year of actual game development, which is how I read the post from Elsabolts.
6th year is the time between the end of year 5 and beginning of year 7. After 6 years have passed we're already on 7th year of development.
Some things never change
I simply voiced an opinion and gave an example to back it up. So because my opinion doesn't match yours then I must be angry and a part of some group of people you have obviously given a label to?
They all agree with each other, and all have been shown to be wrong.
Chris Roberts has shown them to be wrong, with his claim that if funding was to stop, they would have still enough money.
Perhaps it might help to read all posts, understand all posts and replies before just posting aggressive tripe. You just look foolish.
Box office receipts are what's compared, for a reason. Ancillary rights may not go to the folks who financed the film. And aren't generally included in comparisons, as they're another level of statistics to track down as legit. When they do exceptionally well, it's noted. The WC movie was not that.
Also, in Hollywood, breaking even is not the definition of success. Despite how desperately you want to portray the Wing Commander movie as some sort of positive. Money has to be used in projects that lead to profits, otherwise it is just a wasted investment opportunity.
Hey, for fun sometimes, why don't you try to track down who actually financed the Wing Commander movie..... It leads to a series of one-off production and shell companies, as far as I could tell.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I find unlikely if it could lead to such consequence, such pressure would not result on them giving in or respond to it in some way. Like they would sacrifice/harm their funding stream just like that, no way mister.
The WC movie was an utter failure, so bad that Roberts never again directed a movie.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.