Yes, casinos make tons every year too, maybe some people do not consider it "sunk cost".
This thread was not about the people that don't though, it asked about the experiences of those that do.
Well, I realized that supporting Star Citizen...
Good for you.
Not what the thread was/is about.
Well ... as basically almost none of the many posters in this thread felt the need to do what the OP asked them to do ... like answering his question .... i felt right at home with my realization. (" Well, I realized that supporting Star Citizen was a "Sunk Cost Fallacy" NOT.")
Just saying, thought someone said that was fixed four years ago. Why be writing a report for something some person claimed was fixed?
I have not personally seen this bug in the last years. The so called "recent" video posted above also does not have an information how old it is.
It has also not appeared recently in the backer/playtester priority bug testing lists.
If i DO encounter this bug, I WOULD write a bug report about it.
And about the next bug. And the next. Until we are done and the game is good enough for launch.
Have fun
Ah, so argument from anecdote, followed by "it's not in the bug list, therefore it must not be a problem".
Couldn't possibly be because it got kicked into lower priority over other glaring bugs and because some individual made an erroneous assumption and claim about it therefore being fixed four years ago.
Bugs that were previously fixed can happen again, either they can become a rare occurrence that shows fix didn't fully address, or as the game develops its changes can cause it again.
Sometimes it's just stuff overlooked by devs causing the same repeating issue that gets fixed multiple times, stuff like broken lightning or missing collisions tend to be that.
Ah, so argument from anecdote, followed by "it's not in the bug list, therefore it must not be a problem".
Couldn't possibly be because it got kicked into lower priority over other glaring bugs and because some individual made an erroneous assumption and claim about it therefore being fixed four years ago.
I think you should take a look at the Star Citizen playtester discussion boards.
A LOT of things are being discussed. Not all follow the priority order of the developers bug fixing list.
Playtesters do not "kick" things into lower priority. And we are pretty good at finding out if something was really fixed or not. And make jokes about it while we are testing.
If someone suddenly teleported out of his cockpit while in quantum drive, we made a game out of it trying to find him again. And we did. AND wrote bug reports about it back then.
Ah, so argument from anecdote, followed by "it's not in the bug list, therefore it must not be a problem".
Couldn't possibly be because it got kicked into lower priority over other glaring bugs and because some individual made an erroneous assumption and claim about it therefore being fixed four years ago.
Playtesters do not "kick" things into lower priority. And we are pretty good at finding out if something was really fixed or not. And make jokes about it while we are testing.
Playtesters will kick things wherever they want. Most won't even playtest, so why would you ever think of claiming they wouldn't drop priority or discussion of one bug in favor of some newer or more serious bug?
I have not personally seen this bug in the last years. The so called "recent" video posted above also does not have an information how old it is.
It has also not appeared recently in the backer/playtester priority bug testing lists.
If i DO encounter this bug, I WOULD write a bug report about it.
And about the next bug. And the next. Until we are done and the game is good enough for launch.
Have fun
Funny how diehard fans don't see things which don't fit in with their view... You're basically saying because you don't see it - it means it does not exist. Which is one of the daftest defences ever.
My bet is you don't even play the game, it's all about whiteknighting and forum defense for you.
And calling it "the so called 'recent'" shows how much lemon you're sucking. Just open the video in youtube and you can see when it was posted, afaik Yamiks also streams his stuff so you could even verify the creation date if you want to get rid of that flat-earth syndome you've got going on.
Which would make it erroneous to claim some bug is or has been gone for four years if such ends up not being the case.
If a bug somehow...
Then perhaps avoid claiming something is gone if the probability of it still happening is still there.
I could go deep into the theory of risk-management, acceptable residual risk, risk assessment, probability of occurance, into software development metrics, quality by design .... but that would be outside the scope of what we discuss here.
Let’s just say: things CAN be gone for all relevant practical situations because their probability of occurance is so low that it approaches zero.
But external factors can change. And with it the probability of occurance.
Which would make it erroneous to claim some bug is or has been gone for four years if such ends up not being the case.
If a bug somehow...
Then perhaps avoid claiming something is gone if the probability of it still happening is still there.
I could go deep into the theory of risk-management...
Yes, you could go deep into that, and so could I. And we can still conclude, when things are still cropping up displaying an issue, that obviously it's probability is not zero.
So again, perhaps avoid making claims about something based on anecdotal evidence.
Ah, so argument from anecdote, followed by "it's not in the bug list, therefore it must not be a problem".
Couldn't possibly be because it got kicked into lower priority over other glaring bugs and because some individual made an erroneous assumption and claim about it therefore being fixed four years ago.
Playtesters do not "kick" things into lower priority. And we are pretty good at finding out if something was really fixed or not. And make jokes about it while we are testing.
Playtesters will kick things wherever they want. Most won't even playtest, so why would you ever think of claiming they wouldn't drop priority or discussion of one bug in favor of some newer or more serious bug?
Because I was - and am - there. Right in the middle of them.
Ah, so argument from anecdote, followed by "it's not in the bug list, therefore it must not be a problem".
Couldn't possibly be because it got kicked into lower priority over other glaring bugs and because some individual made an erroneous assumption and claim about it therefore being fixed four years ago.
Playtesters do not "kick" things into lower priority. And we are pretty good at finding out if something was really fixed or not. And make jokes about it while we are testing.
Playtesters will kick things wherever they want. Most won't even playtest, so why would you ever think of claiming they wouldn't drop priority or discussion of one bug in favor of some newer or more serious bug?
Because I was - and am - there. Right in the middle of them.
Yet another argument of anecdote?
You are one of them. You don't represent everybody, you don't have the same habits as everybody, you don't have the same mind as everybody. The people you play with likewise doesn't constitute everybody nor does anything you consequently say about discrete experiences constitute the full scope of things going on.
Do not commit the authority and Scotsman fallacy at the same time as making an anecdotal claim.
>>>, that obviously it's probability is not zero>>>
But it is not obvious.
Screenshots, video, and gifs displaying the error is not obvious? You don't know how old a video, that is automatically timestamped when published, is? You don't know how old a gif, that requires it exists past a certain date, roughly would be?
Ah, so argument from anecdote, followed by "it's not in the bug list, therefore it must not be a problem".
Couldn't possibly be because it got kicked into lower priority over other glaring bugs and because some individual made an erroneous assumption and claim about it therefore being fixed four years ago.
Playtesters do not "kick" things into lower priority. And we are pretty good at finding out if something was really fixed or not. And make jokes about it while we are testing.
Playtesters will kick things wherever they want. Most won't even playtest, so why would you ever think of claiming they wouldn't drop priority or discussion of one bug in favor of some newer or more serious bug?
Because I was - and am - there. Right in the middle of them.
Yet another argument of anecdote?
You are one of them. You don't represent everybody, you don't have the same habits as everybody, you don't have the same mind as everybody. The people you play with likewise doesn't constitute everybody nor does anything you consequently say about discrete experiences constitute the full scope of things going on.
Do not commit the authority and Scotsman fallacy at the same time as making an anecdotal claim.
I observe. I describe. I never claim(ed) to represent everybody. These are your words.
Ah, so argument from anecdote, followed by "it's not in the bug list, therefore it must not be a problem".
Couldn't possibly be because it got kicked into lower priority over other glaring bugs and because some individual made an erroneous assumption and claim about it therefore being fixed four years ago.
Playtesters do not "kick" things into lower priority. And we are pretty good at finding out if something was really fixed or not. And make jokes about it while we are testing.
Playtesters will kick things wherever they want. Most won't even playtest, so why would you ever think of claiming they wouldn't drop priority or discussion of one bug in favor of some newer or more serious bug?
Because I was - and am - there. Right in the middle of them.
Yet another argument of anecdote?
You are one of them. You don't represent everybody, you don't have the same habits as everybody, you don't have the same mind as everybody. The people you play with likewise doesn't constitute everybody nor does anything you consequently say about discrete experiences constitute the full scope of things going on.
Do not commit the authority and Scotsman fallacy at the same time as making an anecdotal claim.
I observe. I describe. I never claim(ed) to represent everybody.
"Because I was - and am - there."
You discount arguments that exist outside your anecdotal experiences, and you use statements like that quote you wrote, as the excuse.
In some people's opinion, SC can do nothing right.
In my opinion, SC is far too expensive for an incomplete game.
So, in my opinion, money put into SC at this time is a sunken cost. I didn't buy a car with the intention of driving it in 5 years, nor have I bought a ticket to Mars. Money for future consumer goods is a sunken cost to me. Please don't try to insist that these cases are similar to the futures/options market, they aren't -- money put into SC (and other crowd-funded games) isn't protected by laws and SEC regulations (in the US).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
Why be writing a report for something some person claimed was fixed?
Not what the thread was/is about.
Couldn't possibly be because it got kicked into lower priority over other glaring bugs and because some individual made an erroneous assumption and claim about it therefore being fixed four years ago.
Sometimes it's just stuff overlooked by devs causing the same repeating issue that gets fixed multiple times, stuff like broken lightning or missing collisions tend to be that.
Let’s just say: things CAN be gone for all relevant practical situations because their probability of occurance is so low that it approaches zero.
But external factors can change. And with it the probability of occurance.
Have fun
So again, perhaps avoid making claims about something based on anecdotal evidence.
Join us and find out for yourself.
Have fun
You are one of them. You don't represent everybody, you don't have the same habits as everybody, you don't have the same mind as everybody. The people you play with likewise doesn't constitute everybody nor does anything you consequently say about discrete experiences constitute the full scope of things going on.
Do not commit the authority and Scotsman fallacy at the same time as making an anecdotal claim.
But it is not obvious. A bug is seen in a Video. So far we do not know yet how old that video is, what SC Version we see in that Video.
If it is a recent version, that video can be used for writing a bug report. If it refers to an old version it is funny, but not very useful anymore.
Have fun
You don't know how old a video, that is automatically timestamped when published, is? You don't know how old a gif, that requires it exists past a certain date, roughly would be?
Aight, live in whatever fantasy you want.
Have fun
You discount arguments that exist outside your anecdotal experiences, and you use statements like that quote you wrote, as the excuse.
Your words, your mistake.
Have fun
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.