There's plenty of rhetoric between fanboy and hater that's been included in these discussions. Don't mistake your refusing to acknowledge those points in favor of lumping everyone who disagrees with you into the hater category for a complete absence of rational skepticism or criticism of the game's development.
Rational skepticism or criticism of the game's development could only be provided of value if given by someone with actual knowledge about the subject (Star Citizen) and profession (Game Development) in question.
Unfortunately that's a rare occurrence in most general gaming forums.
You'll notice that the threads with most participation are not technical and objective ones or about ingame stuff, but about drama, redundancy's and other frivolous miscellaneous where facts, accuracy or technical knowledge are not mandatory.
As soon as they took money from someone they knew wasn't qualified to judge game development and had very little to no info about what SC would become, then your reqs went completely out the window.
Nobody forced them to crowdfund this project. You accept the consequences of your actions. In this instance, your core investor are uneducated (in game development) gamers. Trying to tell those same folks they aren't qualified to comment on the fruits of their own cash is ludicrous.
There's plenty of rhetoric between fanboy and hater that's been included in these discussions. Don't mistake your refusing to acknowledge those points in favor of lumping everyone who disagrees with you into the hater category for a complete absence of rational skepticism or criticism of the game's development.
Rational skepticism or criticism of the game's development could only be provided of value if given by someone with actual knowledge about the subject (Star Citizen) and profession (Game Development) in question.
Unfortunately that's a rare occurrence in most general gaming forums.
You'll notice that the threads with most participation are not technical and objective ones or about ingame stuff, but about drama, redundancy's and other frivolous miscellaneous where facts, accuracy or technical knowledge are not mandatory.
As soon as they took money from someone they knew wasn't qualified to judge game development and had very little to no info about what SC would become, then your reqs went completely out the window.
Nobody forced them to crowdfund this project. You accept the consequences of your actions. In this instance, your core investor are uneducated (in game development) gamers. Trying to tell those same folks they aren't qualified to comment on the fruits of their own cash is ludicrous.
He found the perfect pastie. A gambler who sold a company 20 years for a few billion and got rich quick. So they sold these guys on another get rich (not so quick) scheme.
I am sure they went all in with an SQ 42 pithc...look we have Luke Skywalker and Skully. And oh yeah Gary Oldman. You know him the crazy guy. Yeah we have them already paid for listen (they play the voice acting demos).
Then they negotiated some make believe amount they thought would get SQ 42 out the door. Probably started at 75 worked around and Roberts was the straw man who thought we will get 50, but instead (since he doesnt know money obviously) screwed up and they got 46. You know the old haggling skits... I can see it now Roberts thinking here we are we got him now. Roberts is at 60 the guy is at 40, Roberts says 55 and the guy says 35. Roberts says 50 without thinking the guy say 40. Roberts is confused so he says 50 again the guys says 30. Then Roberts is completely lost he says 45, and then the guys says...I feel sorry for you son here 46 try and make it last more than 9 months...
After reading everything I suspect this is a typical back room deal all made to look legal, with some incentive laden pay off schedule. Where the guy will get his 46 million if SQ 42 sells X amount and will have a graduated pay scale for every benchmark number of copies sold. I suspect the guy has little to no interest in SC multiplayer at all. Which would be the smart thing. Because even me, the harshest critic thought that SQ 42 was the only thing they had that had any chance of being remotely plausible and playable.
Oh yeah crowdfunding comes with all that noise and rubish doesn't mean you cant dismiss the useless stuff and learn something along the way
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Oh yeah crowdfunding comes with all that noise and rubish doesn't mean you cant dismiss the useless stuff and learn something along the way
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Learning about game dev wasn't a requirement of backing, though.
Likely, there are many backers who spent more money than you that don't have any game dev experience. From where I'm sitting, that means they have more of a right to make these rules you're creating than you do, and we have some of them making the same criticisms non-backers are. Conversely, there are users who haven't backed the game but defend points for CIG. Seems legit to me.
It's one thing to support or criticize a project, an entirely different thing to imply that you're the arbiter of qualifying who can criticize that project.
Oh yeah crowdfunding comes with all that noise and rubish doesn't mean you cant dismiss the useless stuff and learn something along the way
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Learning about game dev wasn't a requirement of backing, though.
Likely, there are many backers who spent more money than you that don't have any game dev experience. From where I'm sitting, that means they have more of a right to make these rules you're creating than you do, and we have some of them making the same criticisms non-backers are. Conversely, there are users who haven't backed the game but defend points for CIG. Seems legit to me.
It's one thing to support or criticize a project, an entirely different thing to imply that you're the arbiter of qualifying who can criticize that project.
Like most things that involve spending money all you need is... "drum roll suspense"...
Money.
A material or abstract number valued by society for transactions that can be obtained or accumulated through savings in large quantity's by discipline through the years or just having no expenses, loaded acquaintances or cheer luck! So without any knowledge, sharp intelligence or skill required many people can have it...
Well born, Gambling, heritage...
Spending money is the easiest thing in the world and many people will gladly help you do it!
Now...having the knowledge and intelligence to know how and in what to spend...Well that's other ball game.
If people without the intellectual tools to be investors decide to be investors what can we do?
Make an "IQ Investor" exam before accepting any money?
Oh yeah crowdfunding comes with all that noise and rubish doesn't mean you cant dismiss the useless stuff and learn something along the way
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Learning about game dev wasn't a requirement of backing, though.
Likely, there are many backers who spent more money than you that don't have any game dev experience. From where I'm sitting, that means they have more of a right to make these rules you're creating than you do, and we have some of them making the same criticisms non-backers are. Conversely, there are users who haven't backed the game but defend points for CIG. Seems legit to me.
It's one thing to support or criticize a project, an entirely different thing to imply that you're the arbiter of qualifying who can criticize that project.
Like most things that involve spending money all you need is... "drum roll suspense"...
Money.
A material or abstract number valued by society for transactions that can be obtained or accumulated through savings in large quantity's by discipline through the years or just having no expenses, loaded acquaintances or cheer luck! So without any knowledge, sharp intelligence or skill required many people can have it...
Well born, Gambling, heritage...
Spending money is the easiest thing in the world and many people will gladly help you do it!
Now...having the knowledge and intelligence to know how and in what to spend...Well that's other ball game.
If people without the intellectual tools to be investors decide to be investors what can we do?
Make an "IQ Investor" exam before accepting any money?
Hehe now that's funny just to think of it.
Think about it before breaking the piggybank
Except the devs unilaterally change the rules after the transaction, rendering your point completely moot.
Oh yeah crowdfunding comes with all that noise and rubish doesn't mean you cant dismiss the useless stuff and learn something along the way
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Learning about game dev wasn't a requirement of backing, though.
Likely, there are many backers who spent more money than you that don't have any game dev experience. From where I'm sitting, that means they have more of a right to make these rules you're creating than you do, and we have some of them making the same criticisms non-backers are. Conversely, there are users who haven't backed the game but defend points for CIG. Seems legit to me.
It's one thing to support or criticize a project, an entirely different thing to imply that you're the arbiter of qualifying who can criticize that project.
Like most things that involve spending money all you need is... "drum roll suspense"...
Money.
A material or abstract number valued by society for transactions that can be obtained or accumulated through savings in large quantity's by discipline through the years or just having no expenses, loaded acquaintances or cheer luck! So without any knowledge, sharp intelligence or skill required many people can have it...
Well born, Gambling, heritage...
Spending money is the easiest thing in the world and many people will gladly help you do it!
Now...having the knowledge and intelligence to know how and in what to spend...Well that's other ball game.
If people without the intellectual tools to be investors decide to be investors what can we do?
Make an "IQ Investor" exam before accepting any money?
Hehe now that's funny just to think of it.
Think about it before breaking the piggybank
Except the devs unilaterally change the rules after the transaction, rendering your point completely moot.
There's only one rule in crowdfunding, your money their rules. Deal with it.
Oh yeah crowdfunding comes with all that noise and rubish doesn't mean you cant dismiss the useless stuff and learn something along the way
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Learning about game dev wasn't a requirement of backing, though.
Likely, there are many backers who spent more money than you that don't have any game dev experience. From where I'm sitting, that means they have more of a right to make these rules you're creating than you do, and we have some of them making the same criticisms non-backers are. Conversely, there are users who haven't backed the game but defend points for CIG. Seems legit to me.
It's one thing to support or criticize a project, an entirely different thing to imply that you're the arbiter of qualifying who can criticize that project.
Like most things that involve spending money all you need is... "drum roll suspense"...
Money.
A material or abstract number valued by society for transactions that can be obtained or accumulated through savings in large quantity's by discipline through the years or just having no expenses, loaded acquaintances or cheer luck! So without any knowledge, sharp intelligence or skill required many people can have it...
Well born, Gambling, heritage...
Spending money is the easiest thing in the world and many people will gladly help you do it!
Now...having the knowledge and intelligence to know how and in what to spend...Well that's other ball game.
If people without the intellectual tools to be investors decide to be investors what can we do?
Make an "IQ Investor" exam before accepting any money?
Hehe now that's funny just to think of it.
Think about it before breaking the piggybank
Except the devs unilaterally change the rules after the transaction, rendering your point completely moot.
There's only one rule in crowdfunding, your money their rules. Deal with it.
Lol, none of that gets to your point, which was ridiculously overblown. There's no such thing as a good crowdfunding investment or purchase.
The smart consumer doesn't give money based on unenforceable promises.
There's only one rule in crowdfunding, your money their rules. Deal with it.
ahh the fatal flaw of taking on an actual investor who expects their money back. Roberts now answers to him, hyperbole and 'controlling interest' nonsense not withstanding.
I would love to see the particulars to this deal, I am sure they will never see the light of day.
Depending on how serious the guy is about getting the money back I am sure there are a shitload of contingencies. If he isnt then it could be a tax write off and the project is literally no closer to getting finished than it was.
They have spend 193 million since 2012, they received 46 million in May apparently. So half of that could be gone already for all we know.
But rereading the bullshit he put in that letter I found these passages especially hilarious....
Having a great game is only half the battle. As we look towards the release of Squadron 42, we have been acutely aware that having a AAA game that matches the biggest single player games out there only goes so far if no one knows about it. The games we will be competing with for attention have tens and, in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising behind them.
Other companies in a similar situation have normally tackled this problem by partnering with a Publisher for the marketing and sales of their game. As you all know I am not in favor of putting my destiny in the hands of a third party. On the other hand, I don’t feel it would be right to go back to all of you to raise funds to market the game to other people; most of you already have a copy earmarked for you and I still strongly feel that the money brought in from our crowdfunding should continue to go to the development of Star Citizen and Squadron 42.
Because of this, we started to investigate ways to raise money to fund the upcoming marketing and release needs of Squadron 42. We turned away some approaches from Private Equity and Venture Capital because we were concerned about them fully understanding what makes our company tick and pushing us towards short term decisions.
Lets break it down...
--first THERE IS NO GAME, SQ 42 or SC.
--looking forward to the release of SQ 42...what in 3 or more than likely 4 years as per your own 'roadmap?
--we started to investigate...what happened to all the white knights who laughed about CR and Co looking for outside investors? Basically begging anyone with a checkbook to bail them out.
-- and turning someone away that might be the biggest laugh of all.
Like I said this was a bail out. These guys blew through 200 million basically in 5 and a half or so years with what you see is what you get.
The Forbes article while maybe not precisely accurate tot he day, I am sure their numbers are accurate. At the end of 2017 CiG had 14 million in the bank. There is also something floating around that has CiG running another 5 million or so deficit. I am sure we will have that one soon after the year ends (funny how LEGIT investors want transparency) so we will know what they have in moneys right now. Or close to it.
I know the people who want this nightmare to get released couldnt care less if it takes 20 years and a billion dollars. As long as they get it for the 30 bucks or so they spent and whatever free ships they can scam for white knighting it.
As soon as these guys took on an investor the dream was dead. While the likelihood of SQ 42 getting released (on some platform) went up exponentially. The likelihood of SC universe going beyond what it is now went down in kind.
I am sure they will make an effort and start selling vials of blood or something and play the desperation card to make sure they can keep enough money coming in to pretend to be working on SC itself but the vast majority of whatever money they have will be going towards SQ 42 because this is what the investor actually invested in.
Its always been entertaining being right about this fiasco for years, but its always good to have some confirmation from the horses mouths.
Now it will VEEERY interesting if Crytek wins ANY sort of suit even a portion of one. That could literally bankrupt CIG.
Oh yeah crowdfunding comes with all that noise and rubish doesn't mean you cant dismiss the useless stuff and learn something along the way
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Learning about game dev wasn't a requirement of backing, though.
Likely, there are many backers who spent more money than you that don't have any game dev experience. From where I'm sitting, that means they have more of a right to make these rules you're creating than you do, and we have some of them making the same criticisms non-backers are. Conversely, there are users who haven't backed the game but defend points for CIG. Seems legit to me.
It's one thing to support or criticize a project, an entirely different thing to imply that you're the arbiter of qualifying who can criticize that project.
Like most things that involve spending money all you need is... "drum roll suspense"...
Money.
A material or abstract number valued by society for transactions that can be obtained or accumulated through savings in large quantity's by discipline through the years or just having no expenses, loaded acquaintances or cheer luck! So without any knowledge, sharp intelligence or skill required many people can have it...
Well born, Gambling, heritage...
Spending money is the easiest thing in the world and many people will gladly help you do it!
Now...having the knowledge and intelligence to know how and in what to spend...Well that's other ball game.
If people without the intellectual tools to be investors decide to be investors what can we do?
Make an "IQ Investor" exam before accepting any money?
Hehe now that's funny just to think of it.
Think about it before breaking the piggybank
Except the devs unilaterally change the rules after the transaction, rendering your point completely moot.
There's only one rule in crowdfunding, your money their rules. Deal with it.
Lol, none of that gets to your point, which was ridiculously overblown. There's no such thing as a good crowdfunding investment or purchase.
The smart consumer doesn't give money based on unenforceable promises.
Yes there is, it's called doing your homework, having experience or how they call it "an eye for business" .
That's why I putted emphasis that spending money is easy , spending money wisely is hard.
That's why some people spent money on crowdfunded games that went under and are worth nothing while I could sell my AMD Omega Ship + Star Citizen + Squadron42 25$dollar package for 200$dollars in the brink of an eye. That's a 700% increase on the investment right there and it would cover everything putted into this project still leaving me with both games to play along with a handful of ships lol
If I decided to quit PC gaming and wanted to sell my main account I'd easily get 1k for it and walk with another 400% return.
But for most backers it's never been about money, it's all about helping making something special, it's always been and it will always will be the end goal, making the best space sim possible!
Oh yeah crowdfunding comes with all that noise and rubish doesn't mean you cant dismiss the useless stuff and learn something along the way
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Learning about game dev wasn't a requirement of backing, though.
Likely, there are many backers who spent more money than you that don't have any game dev experience. From where I'm sitting, that means they have more of a right to make these rules you're creating than you do, and we have some of them making the same criticisms non-backers are. Conversely, there are users who haven't backed the game but defend points for CIG. Seems legit to me.
It's one thing to support or criticize a project, an entirely different thing to imply that you're the arbiter of qualifying who can criticize that project.
Like most things that involve spending money all you need is... "drum roll suspense"...
Money.
A material or abstract number valued by society for transactions that can be obtained or accumulated through savings in large quantity's by discipline through the years or just having no expenses, loaded acquaintances or cheer luck! So without any knowledge, sharp intelligence or skill required many people can have it...
Well born, Gambling, heritage...
Spending money is the easiest thing in the world and many people will gladly help you do it!
Now...having the knowledge and intelligence to know how and in what to spend...Well that's other ball game.
If people without the intellectual tools to be investors decide to be investors what can we do?
Make an "IQ Investor" exam before accepting any money?
Hehe now that's funny just to think of it.
Think about it before breaking the piggybank
Except the devs unilaterally change the rules after the transaction, rendering your point completely moot.
There's only one rule in crowdfunding, your money their rules. Deal with it.
Lol, none of that gets to your point, which was ridiculously overblown. There's no such thing as a good crowdfunding investment or purchase.
The smart consumer doesn't give money based on unenforceable promises.
Yes there is, it's called doing your homework, having experience or how they call it "an eye for business" .
That's why I putted emphasis that spending money is easy , spending money wisely is hard.
That's why some people spent money on crowdfunded games that went under and are worth nothing while I could sell my AMD Omega Ship + Star Citizen + Squadron42 25$dollar package for 200$dollars in the brink of an eye. That's a 700% increase on the investment right there and it would cover everything putted into this project still leaving me with both games to play along with a handful of ships lol
If I decided to quit PC gaming and wanted to sell my main account I'd easily get 1k for it and walk with another 400% return.
But for most backers it's never been about money, it's all about helping making something special, it's always been and it will always will be the end goal, making the best space sim possible!
As a transaction, crowdfunding is the worst consumer decision you can make. Worse than pre-orders, worse than collector's edition. It's throwing money at a dream without knowing any realistic plan to bring that dream into fruition or what reality might necessitate it looks like on completion.
It's a poor choice. Doesn't mean you can't mitigate the risk by trying to apply some rationale and research, but it's still one of the poorest purchasing decisions you can make as a gamer.
Oh yeah crowdfunding comes with all that noise and rubish doesn't mean you cant dismiss the useless stuff and learn something along the way
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Learning about game dev wasn't a requirement of backing, though.
Likely, there are many backers who spent more money than you that don't have any game dev experience. From where I'm sitting, that means they have more of a right to make these rules you're creating than you do, and we have some of them making the same criticisms non-backers are. Conversely, there are users who haven't backed the game but defend points for CIG. Seems legit to me.
It's one thing to support or criticize a project, an entirely different thing to imply that you're the arbiter of qualifying who can criticize that project.
Like most things that involve spending money all you need is... "drum roll suspense"...
Money.
A material or abstract number valued by society for transactions that can be obtained or accumulated through savings in large quantity's by discipline through the years or just having no expenses, loaded acquaintances or cheer luck! So without any knowledge, sharp intelligence or skill required many people can have it...
Well born, Gambling, heritage...
Spending money is the easiest thing in the world and many people will gladly help you do it!
Now...having the knowledge and intelligence to know how and in what to spend...Well that's other ball game.
If people without the intellectual tools to be investors decide to be investors what can we do?
Make an "IQ Investor" exam before accepting any money?
Hehe now that's funny just to think of it.
Think about it before breaking the piggybank
Except the devs unilaterally change the rules after the transaction, rendering your point completely moot.
There's only one rule in crowdfunding, your money their rules. Deal with it.
Lol, none of that gets to your point, which was ridiculously overblown. There's no such thing as a good crowdfunding investment or purchase.
The smart consumer doesn't give money based on unenforceable promises.
Yes there is, it's called doing your homework, having experience or how they call it "an eye for business" .
That's why I putted emphasis that spending money is easy , spending money wisely is hard.
That's why some people spent money on crowdfunded games that went under and are worth nothing while I could sell my AMD Omega Ship + Star Citizen + Squadron42 25$dollar package for 200$dollars in the brink of an eye. That's a 700% increase on the investment right there and it would cover everything putted into this project still leaving me with both games to play along with a handful of ships lol
If I decided to quit PC gaming and wanted to sell my main account I'd easily get 1k for it and walk with another 400% return.
But for most backers it's never been about money, it's all about helping making something special, it's always been and it will always will be the end goal, making the best space sim possible!
As a transaction, crowdfunding is the worst consumer decision you can make. Worse than pre-orders, worse than collector's edition. It's throwing money at a dream without knowing any realistic plan to bring that dream into fruition or what reality might necessitate it looks like on completion.
It's a poor choice. Doesn't mean you can't mitigate the risk by trying to apply some rationale and research, but it's still one of the poorest purchasing decisions you can make as a gamer.
"meh", I'm in the arts, we do this all the time.
We have money donated to us, we donate money, we have time and talent donated to us and we donate time and talent.
I've yet to be burned on a kickstarter. Then again, I'm reasonably intelligent and don't rush into throwing money at something just because someone shows me a picture.
Supporting projects is great as long as one is intelligent about it. It's how things get done that don't fall into the realm of what the masses want.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
We have money donated to us, we donate money, we have time and talent donated to us and we donate time and talent.
I've yet to be burned on a kickstarter. Then again, I'm reasonably intelligent and don't rush into throwing money at something just because someone shows me a picture.
Supporting projects is great as long as one is intelligent about it. It's how things get done that don't fall into the realm of what the masses want.
This whole thing has become such a joke everyone forgets WHY this thing took off like it did. I guess no one remembers the Chris Roberts "I can do it for a fraction of the cost and time because I wont have to answer to anyone" bullshit speech.
People werent enamored with it because it had all the ships or all the ideas or all the bloat it has now. It was the exact opposite then. A 'simple' plan with (at the time) plausible approach. But in the twisted ironies of fate Roberts actually became what he hated and despised. And thats also something the fanbois dont want to admit.
Look at the higher ups that have all left this thing. Why would you leave a project that could be genre changing and make history (in the actual game making department not just raising money dept.)? You thik it might be because Roberts started treating them like he was treated by the 'suits' when he was never allowed to do what he wanted due to constraints?
But really that while comment relies on the final statement. HOW this thing is now getting done (especially now that the covers have been pulled back a bit) makes it impossible to be 'intelligent' throwing money at it anymore. But that is basically the ONLY way this thing gets done.
Theyre basically broke and theyre 4-5 years from releasing something they can sell. How people cant see that is beyond me. I supopose they and the dreamers have been lulled into thinking the charity train will never stop, and to be honest why wouldnt they? People have continued to throw money at this thing even when the speculation was there, and a lot of that speculation really wasnt as bad as the truth.
Going to be interesting going forward. But They will more than likely need to double what they have already had given to them to finish even SQ 42. You think there are enough 'regular' people out there that can keep throwing money at this and buying more things to get to another 200 million? (making it a near 500 million dollar project)
Maybe it is not THEM ;-) that have a problem seeing ....
In that context ... we passed the 2,2 million Star Citizens mark :-D
Have fun
woo hoo. SO hilarious youre NOW talking about CITIZENS when the go to used to be the MONEY. But now that reality has set in and you see there IS NO MONEY LEFT you have to go to the next straw man which are random emails people send in to prop up fakje numbers to make it look like this thing has a lot of interest.
You know what I see? I saw some of the middle of the road RP streamers throw 7-10 days at this thing a couple weeks ago? I saw guys who have 3-4K subs and habitually 2500-5K viewers stream SC to 1000-1500 viewers. After their sponsorships were over they stopped streaming it altogether. So obvious its not even funny. But I never saw SC break 5K viewers even with all these guys streaming it simultaneously.
So while you might want to try and distance yourself from the money thing and go to the people thing, that isnt any stronger an argument.
A great project with a huge number of supporters that enjoy themselves AND a record breaking very successful crowdfunding campaign that is making history.
With a small number of detractors that - even after years - have not realized that their opposition is in reality helping the project by keeping it in the news.
A great project with a huge number of supporters that enjoy themselves AND a record breaking very successful crowdfunding campaign that is making history.
With a small number of detractors that - even after years - have not realized that their opposition is in reality helping the project by keeping it in the news.
Have fun
A great project is one that has pissed away over 200 million and what there is is what the PTU and the test bed are? THATS a 'great' project to you?
Also huge? Whats huge? How many people do you think play in that test bed? I would say its less than 2500. Is that huge? Life is Feudal has more than that playing in it and that game is a complete train wreck.
Also 'small' number of detractors. Youre so funny. And ironic there are more detractors than players so I think you have the adjectives mixed up there a little bit. I know youre German but maybe you speak French too because they sometimes put adjective in the wrong place (compared to English).
And if that isnt hyperbole and you really think critics are what is necessary to keep this thing relevant (with all the accolades it wants to heap on itself) then you really should seek help.
Oh yeah crowdfunding comes with all that noise and rubish doesn't mean you cant dismiss the useless stuff and learn something along the way
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Learning about game dev wasn't a requirement of backing, though.
Likely, there are many backers who spent more money than you that don't have any game dev experience. From where I'm sitting, that means they have more of a right to make these rules you're creating than you do, and we have some of them making the same criticisms non-backers are. Conversely, there are users who haven't backed the game but defend points for CIG. Seems legit to me.
It's one thing to support or criticize a project, an entirely different thing to imply that you're the arbiter of qualifying who can criticize that project.
Like most things that involve spending money all you need is... "drum roll suspense"...
Money.
A material or abstract number valued by society for transactions that can be obtained or accumulated through savings in large quantity's by discipline through the years or just having no expenses, loaded acquaintances or cheer luck! So without any knowledge, sharp intelligence or skill required many people can have it...
Well born, Gambling, heritage...
Spending money is the easiest thing in the world and many people will gladly help you do it!
Now...having the knowledge and intelligence to know how and in what to spend...Well that's other ball game.
If people without the intellectual tools to be investors decide to be investors what can we do?
Make an "IQ Investor" exam before accepting any money?
Hehe now that's funny just to think of it.
Think about it before breaking the piggybank
Except the devs unilaterally change the rules after the transaction, rendering your point completely moot.
There's only one rule in crowdfunding, your money their rules. Deal with it.
Lol, none of that gets to your point, which was ridiculously overblown. There's no such thing as a good crowdfunding investment or purchase.
The smart consumer doesn't give money based on unenforceable promises.
Yes there is, it's called doing your homework, having experience or how they call it "an eye for business" .
That's why I putted emphasis that spending money is easy , spending money wisely is hard.
That's why some people spent money on crowdfunded games that went under and are worth nothing while I could sell my AMD Omega Ship + Star Citizen + Squadron42 25$dollar package for 200$dollars in the brink of an eye. That's a 700% increase on the investment right there and it would cover everything putted into this project still leaving me with both games to play along with a handful of ships lol
If I decided to quit PC gaming and wanted to sell my main account I'd easily get 1k for it and walk with another 400% return.
But for most backers it's never been about money, it's all about helping making something special, it's always been and it will always will be the end goal, making the best space sim possible!
As a transaction, crowdfunding is the worst consumer decision you can make. Worse than pre-orders, worse than collector's edition. It's throwing money at a dream without knowing any realistic plan to bring that dream into fruition or what reality might necessitate it looks like on completion.
It's a poor choice. Doesn't mean you can't mitigate the risk by trying to apply some rationale and research, but it's still one of the poorest purchasing decisions you can make as a gamer.
"meh", I'm in the arts, we do this all the time.
We have money donated to us, we donate money, we have time and talent donated to us and we donate time and talent.
I've yet to be burned on a kickstarter. Then again, I'm reasonably intelligent and don't rush into throwing money at something just because someone shows me a picture.
Supporting projects is great as long as one is intelligent about it. It's how things get done that don't fall into the realm of what the masses want.
You can meh it if you like, based on the objective details of the transaction, who guarantees what, etc., It's a piss poor decision compared to the other options you have as a gamer. Period.
Again, nothing about how you feel about it changes that gamers are giving money on a wing and a prayer. This isn't a painting. It's more like funding the construction of an art studio.
As a transaction, crowdfunding is the worst consumer decision you can make. Worse than pre-orders, worse than collector's edition. It's throwing money at a dream without knowing any realistic plan to bring that dream into fruition or what reality might necessitate it looks like on completion.
It's a poor choice. Doesn't mean you can't mitigate the risk by trying to apply some rationale and research, but it's still one of the poorest purchasing decisions you can make as a gamer.
If you change the bolded parts to "as an investment / as an investor" and I would agree wholeheartedly.
As a gamer, supporting dev's you believe in...Well scratch the "as a gamer" and just go with "as a human being supporting people you believe in and making mutual dreams a reality that otherwise would be impossible to realise is a great thing imo."
Again this requires as much of faith-instinct as homework-background check and overall good instinct to separate what is and what isn't worth it for "you".
But back to gaming setting:
Even with all the risks, delays, uncertainty and real possibility that the finished game doesn't live up to expectations, it's still a commendable effort and maybe a signal to "big studios" that there's maybe a type of game or subject that they should be paying attention too.
You'll notice that since Star Citizen was announced a LOT more space/sci-fi genre games were announced along with multiple ambitious kickstarted projects and that's a good thing imo!
Crowdfunding can be a very good thing if used by people who truly understand it for what it is and are willing to support the risks that come with it, the problem is that since it's a recent "platform" some people, wrongly, mistake it as pre-ordering service and never read the fine prints, again you can't really vet funding by doing "IQ investors exams" or making sure they understand the risks before accepting people's money but those who ultimately felt "cheated" by "broken promises" will learn some valuable lessons along the way and be more careful with their investments in the long run, monetary and emotionally.
woo hoo. SO hilarious youre NOW talking about CITIZENS when the go to used to be the MONEY. But now that reality has set in and you see there IS NO MONEY LEFT you have to go to the next straw man which are random emails people send in to prop up fakje numbers to make it look like this thing has a lot of interest.
You know what I see? I saw some of the middle of the road RP streamers throw 7-10 days at this thing a couple weeks ago? I saw guys who have 3-4K subs and habitually 2500-5K viewers stream SC to 1000-1500 viewers. After their sponsorships were over they stopped streaming it altogether. So obvious its not even funny. But I never saw SC break 5K viewers even with all these guys streaming it simultaneously.
So while you might want to try and distance yourself from the money thing and go to the people thing, that isnt any stronger an argument.
I'm not saying you can't make the purchase. Knock yourself out. But to act as if crowdfunding any of these games could objectively be considered a prudent consumer move is disingenuous. Prudent consumers don't give away all the guarantees of purchasing a completed gaming product while paying the exact same price or more.
I'm not saying you can't make the purchase. Knock yourself out. But to act as if crowdfunding any of these games could objectively be considered a prudent consumer move is disingenuous. Prudent consumers don't give away all the guarantees of purchasing a completed gaming product while paying the exact same price or more.
Cmon many it's not faith alone, it's also a lot of common sense, if you like the pitch of the idea, the developer background and want to support it's ok to do it. Just be wary of the risks.
That's about knowing how to access risks and investing accordingly to your limitations.
The majority of the early backers who are now into thousands of dollars spent on Star Citizen started most likely with a small package like the rest of us, step by step they liked what they saw and invested more and more.
But this is not just for crowdfunding or gaming, you put money based on past experiences all the time, who here hasn't went to the movies blindly to check a new flick from it's favorite actor / director? Bought a book from your favourite writer without reading any reviews etc
You got it because your past experiences were good so you're willing to take the "risk" of going again even if the movie/books sucks well it's part of the experience, some turn out good others turn out bad that's just how life is.
LOL that must be from some time when the prophet himself was spreading his lies.
Right now SC has 978 viewers.
In total SC as a channel has less than a 200K followers (currently 186,635.) pretty pathetic for something thats described the way it is.
Pubg has almost 25 million.
Fall Out 76 has 370K (twice as many) for something some people would claim is actually WORSE than SC is.
House Flipper some random sim game that has maybe 5 hours of play time has 60K followers , so a third of what SC has. Now THATS awesomely funny.
Atlas (just announced hypefest) has 9100 but 3356 viewers (4 times what SC currently has) for a game thats a running joke at the moment and hasnt been released yet. In fact they had 200K viewers (more than 3 times the highest viewership SC EVER had) watching and waiting for a release (that never happened)
So keep trying to cherry pick bullshit because the actaul facts can in no way shape or form back up anything thatwould even come close to saying this things has any widespread interest whatsoever.
Even when Roberts himself at their own personal convention is there spewing his snake oil speeches they cant muster 100K viewers, for something with supposedly 2 million+ 'citizens' thats a very low percentage.
I'm not saying you can't make the purchase. Knock yourself out. But to act as if crowdfunding any of these games could objectively be considered a prudent consumer move is disingenuous. Prudent consumers don't give away all the guarantees of purchasing a completed gaming product while paying the exact same price or more.
Cmon many it's not faith alone, it's also a lot of common sense, if you like the pitch of the idea, the developer background and want to support it's ok to do it. Just be wary of the risks.
That's about knowing how to access risks and investing accordingly to your limitations.
The majority of the early backers who are now into thousands of dollars spent on Star Citizen started most likely with a small package like the rest of us, step by step they liked what they saw and invested more and more.
But this is not just for crowdfunding or gaming, you put money based on past experiences all the time, who here hasn't went to the movies blindly to check a new flick from it's favorite actor / director? Bought a book from your favourite writer without reading any reviews etc
You got it because your past experiences were good so you're willing to take the "risk" of going again even if the movie/books sucks well it's part of the experience, some turn out good others turn out bad that's just how life is.
Your analogy isn't relevant. Buying a book or going to a movie you haven't checked out reviews or trailers for is still purchasing a guaranteed product. The book, or the movie. And it's ironic that you think you can convince us you somehow accurately assessed the risks of your purchases considering how much this game has evolved from the first purchases and how much the timelines have shifted.
You made a faith-based purchase. That is what it is. What it isn't, is an objectively smart purchasing decision. The intrinsic value you hold for the idea you thought you were backing when you made the purchase doesn't even come into play, because you're not even guaranteed, in any way, to receive the idea you were holding when you forked over your cash.
As such, to get back to the original reason I posted, you really look foolish when you try to claim someone who backed and is critical is just butthurt because they made a poor purchasing decision. You all made poor purchasing decisions; the only difference is how much you each feel your faith has been answered.
or maybe that was when lirik streamed it for like 3 hours one day. SO maybe Lirik should be the new prophet huh? He has more drawing power than the current one.
Comments
Nobody forced them to crowdfund this project. You accept the consequences of your actions. In this instance, your core investor are uneducated (in game development) gamers. Trying to tell those same folks they aren't qualified to comment on the fruits of their own cash is ludicrous.
I am sure they went all in with an SQ 42 pithc...look we have Luke Skywalker and Skully. And oh yeah Gary Oldman. You know him the crazy guy. Yeah we have them already paid for listen (they play the voice acting demos).
Then they negotiated some make believe amount they thought would get SQ 42 out the door. Probably started at 75 worked around and Roberts was the straw man who thought we will get 50, but instead (since he doesnt know money obviously) screwed up and they got 46. You know the old haggling skits... I can see it now Roberts thinking here we are we got him now. Roberts is at 60 the guy is at 40, Roberts says 55 and the guy says 35. Roberts says 50 without thinking the guy say 40. Roberts is confused so he says 50 again the guys says 30. Then Roberts is completely lost he says 45, and then the guys says...I feel sorry for you son here 46 try and make it last more than 9 months...
After reading everything I suspect this is a typical back room deal all made to look legal, with some incentive laden pay off schedule. Where the guy will get his 46 million if SQ 42 sells X amount and will have a graduated pay scale for every benchmark number of copies sold. I suspect the guy has little to no interest in SC multiplayer at all. Which would be the smart thing. Because even me, the harshest critic thought that SQ 42 was the only thing they had that had any chance of being remotely plausible and playable.
I surely learned a lot about game development since following the development of Star Citizen.
As for @rodarin 's' new fantasy movie script I'll just say that the Hollywood actors performed motion capture not just voice just so that some minimal valuable knowledge comes out of it.
Likely, there are many backers who spent more money than you that don't have any game dev experience. From where I'm sitting, that means they have more of a right to make these rules you're creating than you do, and we have some of them making the same criticisms non-backers are. Conversely, there are users who haven't backed the game but defend points for CIG. Seems legit to me.
It's one thing to support or criticize a project, an entirely different thing to imply that you're the arbiter of qualifying who can criticize that project.
The smart consumer doesn't give money based on unenforceable promises.
I would love to see the particulars to this deal, I am sure they will never see the light of day.
Depending on how serious the guy is about getting the money back I am sure there are a shitload of contingencies. If he isnt then it could be a tax write off and the project is literally no closer to getting finished than it was.
They have spend 193 million since 2012, they received 46 million in May apparently. So half of that could be gone already for all we know.
But rereading the bullshit he put in that letter I found these passages especially hilarious....
Having a great game is only half the battle. As we look towards the release of Squadron 42, we have been acutely aware that having a AAA game that matches the biggest single player games out there only goes so far if no one knows about it. The games we will be competing with for attention have tens and, in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising behind them.
Other companies in a similar situation have normally tackled this problem by partnering with a Publisher for the marketing and sales of their game. As you all know I am not in favor of putting my destiny in the hands of a third party. On the other hand, I don’t feel it would be right to go back to all of you to raise funds to market the game to other people; most of you already have a copy earmarked for you and I still strongly feel that the money brought in from our crowdfunding should continue to go to the development of Star Citizen and Squadron 42.
Because of this, we started to investigate ways to raise money to fund the upcoming marketing and release needs of Squadron 42. We turned away some approaches from Private Equity and Venture Capital because we were concerned about them fully understanding what makes our company tick and pushing us towards short term decisions.
Lets break it down...--first THERE IS NO GAME, SQ 42 or SC.
--looking forward to the release of SQ 42...what in 3 or more than likely 4 years as per your own 'roadmap?
--we started to investigate...what happened to all the white knights who laughed about CR and Co looking for outside investors? Basically begging anyone with a checkbook to bail them out.
-- and turning someone away that might be the biggest laugh of all.
Like I said this was a bail out. These guys blew through 200 million basically in 5 and a half or so years with what you see is what you get.
The Forbes article while maybe not precisely accurate tot he day, I am sure their numbers are accurate. At the end of 2017 CiG had 14 million in the bank. There is also something floating around that has CiG running another 5 million or so deficit. I am sure we will have that one soon after the year ends (funny how LEGIT investors want transparency) so we will know what they have in moneys right now. Or close to it.
I know the people who want this nightmare to get released couldnt care less if it takes 20 years and a billion dollars. As long as they get it for the 30 bucks or so they spent and whatever free ships they can scam for white knighting it.
As soon as these guys took on an investor the dream was dead. While the likelihood of SQ 42 getting released (on some platform) went up exponentially. The likelihood of SC universe going beyond what it is now went down in kind.
I am sure they will make an effort and start selling vials of blood or something and play the desperation card to make sure they can keep enough money coming in to pretend to be working on SC itself but the vast majority of whatever money they have will be going towards SQ 42 because this is what the investor actually invested in.
Its always been entertaining being right about this fiasco for years, but its always good to have some confirmation from the horses mouths.
Now it will VEEERY interesting if Crytek wins ANY sort of suit even a portion of one. That could literally bankrupt CIG.
It's a poor choice. Doesn't mean you can't mitigate the risk by trying to apply some rationale and research, but it's still one of the poorest purchasing decisions you can make as a gamer.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
People werent enamored with it because it had all the ships or all the ideas or all the bloat it has now. It was the exact opposite then. A 'simple' plan with (at the time) plausible approach. But in the twisted ironies of fate Roberts actually became what he hated and despised. And thats also something the fanbois dont want to admit.
Look at the higher ups that have all left this thing. Why would you leave a project that could be genre changing and make history (in the actual game making department not just raising money dept.)? You thik it might be because Roberts started treating them like he was treated by the 'suits' when he was never allowed to do what he wanted due to constraints?
But really that while comment relies on the final statement. HOW this thing is now getting done (especially now that the covers have been pulled back a bit) makes it impossible to be 'intelligent' throwing money at it anymore. But that is basically the ONLY way this thing gets done.
Theyre basically broke and theyre 4-5 years from releasing something they can sell. How people cant see that is beyond me. I supopose they and the dreamers have been lulled into thinking the charity train will never stop, and to be honest why wouldnt they? People have continued to throw money at this thing even when the speculation was there, and a lot of that speculation really wasnt as bad as the truth.
Going to be interesting going forward. But They will more than likely need to double what they have already had given to them to finish even SQ 42. You think there are enough 'regular' people out there that can keep throwing money at this and buying more things to get to another 200 million? (making it a near 500 million dollar project)
>>>
You know what I see? I saw some of the middle of the road RP streamers throw 7-10 days at this thing a couple weeks ago? I saw guys who have 3-4K subs and habitually 2500-5K viewers stream SC to 1000-1500 viewers. After their sponsorships were over they stopped streaming it altogether. So obvious its not even funny. But I never saw SC break 5K viewers even with all these guys streaming it simultaneously.
So while you might want to try and distance yourself from the money thing and go to the people thing, that isnt any stronger an argument.
Also huge? Whats huge? How many people do you think play in that test bed? I would say its less than 2500. Is that huge? Life is Feudal has more than that playing in it and that game is a complete train wreck.
Also 'small' number of detractors. Youre so funny. And ironic there are more detractors than players so I think you have the adjectives mixed up there a little bit. I know youre German but maybe you speak French too because they sometimes put adjective in the wrong place (compared to English).
And if that isnt hyperbole and you really think critics are what is necessary to keep this thing relevant (with all the accolades it wants to heap on itself) then you really should seek help.
Again, nothing about how you feel about it changes that gamers are giving money on a wing and a prayer. This isn't a painting. It's more like funding the construction of an art studio.
I'm not saying you can't make the purchase. Knock yourself out. But to act as if crowdfunding any of these games could objectively be considered a prudent consumer move is disingenuous. Prudent consumers don't give away all the guarantees of purchasing a completed gaming product while paying the exact same price or more.
Right now SC has 978 viewers.
In total SC as a channel has less than a 200K followers (currently 186,635.) pretty pathetic for something thats described the way it is.
Pubg has almost 25 million.
Fall Out 76 has 370K (twice as many) for something some people would claim is actually WORSE than SC is.
House Flipper some random sim game that has maybe 5 hours of play time has 60K followers , so a third of what SC has. Now THATS awesomely funny.
Atlas (just announced hypefest) has 9100 but 3356 viewers (4 times what SC currently has) for a game thats a running joke at the moment and hasnt been released yet. In fact they had 200K viewers (more than 3 times the highest viewership SC EVER had) watching and waiting for a release (that never happened)
So keep trying to cherry pick bullshit because the actaul facts can in no way shape or form back up anything thatwould even come close to saying this things has any widespread interest whatsoever.
Even when Roberts himself at their own personal convention is there spewing his snake oil speeches they cant muster 100K viewers, for something with supposedly 2 million+ 'citizens' thats a very low percentage.
You made a faith-based purchase. That is what it is. What it isn't, is an objectively smart purchasing decision. The intrinsic value you hold for the idea you thought you were backing when you made the purchase doesn't even come into play, because you're not even guaranteed, in any way, to receive the idea you were holding when you forked over your cash.
As such, to get back to the original reason I posted, you really look foolish when you try to claim someone who backed and is critical is just butthurt because they made a poor purchasing decision. You all made poor purchasing decisions; the only difference is how much you each feel your faith has been answered.