Author Topic: Star Citizen General BS  (Read 1151219 times)

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #600 on: July 31, 2017, 02:46:44 PM »
I liked Serendipity's playing devil's advocate at first to balance out the echo chamber here, but there reaches a point where it goes from a good debate to talking to a wall. When both sides keep bringing up the same points its obviously devolved into wall speak. Why do you guys even bother with Serendipity anymore, and Serendipity why do you bother when you seem unwilling to consider any other view points currently?

You beat me to it, as I was just pondering the same thing. But you know how we are here, we don't run an echo chamber. So as long as posters are civil, no matter how ludicrous their opinions and comments, we can continue to indulge.  :c00lbert:
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

Ghostmaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #601 on: July 31, 2017, 02:51:43 PM »

Quote
The client can be hacked to work offline. It removes the server limitations and provides a smooth gaming experience.

Jesus H. Christ on crutches, man! Did you have a partial lobotomy? Because, damn. This is an online only game. And you're talking about hacking offline - which means no other players, as well as a "smooth gaming experience" as a result of the hack?
I want to draw attention to this, because this is what our host has been bitching about; this bizarre contorting of reality that you usually get when you read Cthulhu Mythos tomes.

Swap out SC for ANY online/MMO game name, and insert it in, and think about it.

'The World of Warcraft client provides a smooth gaming experience when you hack it to run offline!'

Jesus Christ, Serendipity, LOOK AT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. This is supposed to be an ONLINE game. That's like talking about how awesome it is to play Team Fortress 2 or PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds offline! (Yes, I know you can play TF2 offline to practice, and I bet PUBG works that way too; but that's not exactly playing the game, is it?)


Motto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #602 on: July 31, 2017, 02:59:40 PM »
I like to play chess with myself. For some reason, I always win  :D

The thing that bothers me most however, is that I don't think Serendipity is playing devil's advocate here. If he is, I'd have to applaud him, but my best guess is that he really truly madly believes everything he says about CIG/SC. Those who truly do that, have their head so far up their own ...es that they can inspect their own tonsils from within.

Serendipity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #603 on: July 31, 2017, 03:34:31 PM »
Derek's been saying it for 2 years already. Let's see where we are in another 12 months.

This again?

Do we need to remind you that when analysts make predictions, it's based on info "on hand at the time"?

When I said that back in Oct 2015, that was before a bunch of whales stuck in Sunk Cost Falllacy, decided to keep giving them money, even as CIG continued to use deception and trickery to aid that effort. And it's only now some of you are feigning shock and surprise that it's precisely what they've been doing all this time.

Now 2.8 years late, and $90.5M over budget, please explain to me HOW they would still be operational at the end of Jan 2016, after having raised $107M.

So yes, in a way, I was right. This is evidenced by the fact that the project is late, is nowhere near completion, and has raised an additional $48M since end of Jan 2016. If backers had stopped giving them money, the project, for all intent and purposes, would most likely be dead by now.

Quote
The client can be hacked to work offline. It removes the server limitations and provides a smooth gaming experience.

Jesus H. Christ on crutches, man! Did you have a partial lobotomy? Because, damn. This is an online only game. And you're talking about hacking offline - which means no other players, as well as a "smooth gaming experience" as a result of the hack?

Quote
Yes it's a resource hog but that never stopped Crysis shipping millions of copies.

That's not what is making it raise money. Get a grip.

Quote
Cleverly using collateral to get a loan to save money on exchange rates isn't a sign they're in financial trouble. Mass lay offs and stories of non payment of wages would be a sign of financial trouble.

Except that's not what they did. And only complete morons believe the rubbish explanation that Ortwin, who has every reason to lie, as they have done many times in the past, gave. If it wasn't such a big deal, WHY did he feel the need to come out on a SUNDAY to address a furor that I apparently started when I tweeted and wrote about the loan?

The information available at the time was that CIG held end of year sales that raised millions. It had happened the last two years and was about to happen again. What analysis didn't spot this very simple and obvious fact? Analysis that was patently useless.

Your comment about being over budget are ridiculous when it's on record that they will use all money raised to make the game. Just because they stopped stretch goals at 65 million, doesn't mean that was the game's budget. The budget is set by the backers. The backers keep funding. The budget keeps increasing. It's quite simple. 'Late' could be argued the same.

Saying 'if backers stopped giving them money' is like saying if the Earth's atmosphere suddenly had no oxygen we'd all die. Well duh! Why would anyone think funding would instantly dry up after making 30+ million a year for a couple of years? That's shockingly bad analysis. So you say in a way you were right...whilst being completely wrong! By an order of magnitude almost so far. 3 months projected, currently not far off being 30. And you say I should get a grip?

Like I've said before, we'll have to wait and see. There is no other option. We wait and if they collapse before producing games, you were right. If they don't and we're still here discussing the game and company in 12 months, then I guess you were wrong.

If the loan indeed was a wise decision, CIG would have made a public statement, because, of course, it was a wise decision. So publically telling about it should boost the morale of both backers and investors. Why hide good news?

But, they didn't. They kept quiet. Until the news broke and they had to issue a statement about it. Not to boost morale, but to prevent people actually loosing morale because it wasn't a good deal, but a shitty one. A desperate move to keep afloat yet another month. Now, that's a good reason to not tell about it. As they tried.

Again, only time will tell which story is correct. You think another month has been bought so you think it's curtains by the end of August? Will Gamescom provide another month or two? What about citizencon? 3.0 Being released? Then a Christmas sale. Does that mean another 4 or 5 months in total? So we're into 2018 already. What then? Is it curtains in January? Let me know, we can set a reminder.

Quote
The client can be hacked to work offline. It removes the server limitations and provides a smooth gaming experience.

Jesus H. Christ on crutches, man! Did you have a partial lobotomy? Because, damn. This is an online only game. And you're talking about hacking offline - which means no other players, as well as a "smooth gaming experience" as a result of the hack?
I want to draw attention to this, because this is what our host has been bitching about; this bizarre contorting of reality that you usually get when you read Cthulhu Mythos tomes.

Swap out SC for ANY online/MMO game name, and insert it in, and think about it.

'The World of Warcraft client provides a smooth gaming experience when you hack it to run offline!'

Jesus Christ, Serendipity, LOOK AT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. This is supposed to be an ONLINE game. That's like talking about how awesome it is to play Team Fortress 2 or PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds offline! (Yes, I know you can play TF2 offline to practice, and I bet PUBG works that way too; but that's not exactly playing the game, is it?)

I'm looking at what I said and it just says that the game, without an online component runs reasonably well. Huge maps. Millions of kilometres of space. It works. The netcode is poop, we know this. CIG knows this. Can it be fixed? They reckon so. We shall see in time.

I like to play chess with myself. For some reason, I always win  :D

The thing that bothers me most however, is that I don't think Serendipity is playing devil's advocate here. If he is, I'd have to applaud him, but my best guess is that he really truly madly believes everything he says about CIG/SC. Those who truly do that, have their head so far up their own ...es that they can inspect their own tonsils from within.

I'm just presenting my opinions, my head is firmly on my shoulders and I assess everything I've read and seen about this project. I think they're going to produce an interesting gaming experience in time. I think it's going to be pretty good. I don't blindly believe everything from CIG but I also don't assume they're lying everytime they communicate something either. I've always been a very trusting person and if I see something that makes me believe the companies about to collapse or there is an insurmountable challenge they'll never overcome then I'll admit it. Right now that's not how I feel or think about the project.

Guess what, only time will tell.

As to why I bother well, we're all having fun here I think, you can laugh at me and I can roll my eyes at you. I'm not about to start insulting anyone or raging, it's only a video game after all.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 03:37:36 PM by Serendipity »

StanTheMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #604 on: July 31, 2017, 06:49:21 PM »
Hi Serendipity, so you think CIG are being completely honest with their backers?

I believe they're honest in the sense that plans, scopes and timeframes change, often without warning or any clue to the necessities. I believe they do their best to build a game under intense scrutiny and vitriol. I believe lots try to find as many inconsistencies as possible with comments from a large company who's internal communication can be improved.

Basically, yes I do. Errors have been made. Guestimates have been poor. Things have changed but on the whole they're just a game dev company trying to make a game.


Professionals don't make "errors" so often.

It is the very essence of being professional to know what you are doing MOST OF THE TIME !


And when you say that people have been funding the game on a regular basis and will (probably) continue to, why do you imagine there is such uproar when CIG announce a change to a ship/jpeg ?   

If people are funding the game to the tune of hundreds and thousands of $ year upon year without an expectation of a product being delivered to a somewhat agreed spec, why would changes to ships matter so much to so many ?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 07:00:42 PM by StanTheMan »

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #605 on: July 31, 2017, 07:36:38 PM »
I like to play chess with myself. For some reason, I always win  :D

The thing that bothers me most however, is that I don't think Serendipity is playing devil's advocate here. If he is, I'd have to applaud him, but my best guess is that he really truly madly believes everything he says about CIG/SC. Those who truly do that, have their head so far up their own ...es that they can inspect their own tonsils from within.

Yeah, I agree. It's just so amazing.  :yikes:
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

Serendipity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #606 on: August 01, 2017, 12:52:23 AM »
Hi Serendipity, so you think CIG are being completely honest with their backers?

I believe they're honest in the sense that plans, scopes and timeframes change, often without warning or any clue to the necessities. I believe they do their best to build a game under intense scrutiny and vitriol. I believe lots try to find as many inconsistencies as possible with comments from a large company who's internal communication can be improved.

Basically, yes I do. Errors have been made. Guestimates have been poor. Things have changed but on the whole they're just a game dev company trying to make a game.


Professionals don't make "errors" so often.

It is the very essence of being professional to know what you are doing MOST OF THE TIME !


And when you say that people have been funding the game on a regular basis and will (probably) continue to, why do you imagine there is such uproar when CIG announce a change to a ship/jpeg ?   

If people are funding the game to the tune of hundreds and thousands of $ year upon year without an expectation of a product being delivered to a somewhat agreed spec, why would changes to ships matter so much to so many ?

Pretty much every game of the last 10 years has been delayed from the original projections. Is there not a single professional within the gaming industry? Derek's own LOD has a trailer saying 2012 without release even now. It's par for the course.

No-one is saying they don't expect delivery of a product and those who suggest they've had their monies worth from the forums and current alpha are obviously a little strange. That's not me. I expect a game and I expect a decent game with most of the planned features.

Rage about changing ships is in some cases justified I suppose, I'm not bothered enough to care. My ship will be alright to start with but some people need to have an advantage over others, it's the nature of a lot of gamers. Getting overly emotional over a video game is not in my DNA. It's just a video game.

I like to play chess with myself. For some reason, I always win  :D

The thing that bothers me most however, is that I don't think Serendipity is playing devil's advocate here. If he is, I'd have to applaud him, but my best guess is that he really truly madly believes everything he says about CIG/SC. Those who truly do that, have their head so far up their own ...es that they can inspect their own tonsils from within.

Yeah, I agree. It's just so amazing.  :yikes:

No answers for my questions? I'll ask again for ease. What kind of financial analysis missed the previous 2 years funding spikes and didn't factor them into projections? Is it the same analysis you're using to this day for your predictions? Do you still, honestly expect imminent financial collapse despite full knowledge of Gamescom, citizencon and 3.0 release funding spikes?

Bonus question: What was the event that is causing the extinction and where is this extinction if, as is becoming obvious, due to aforementioned upcoming funding spikes, they 'survive' into next year?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 12:58:20 AM by Serendipity »

GaryII

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #607 on: August 01, 2017, 02:33:54 AM »
  Do you still, honestly expect imminent financial collapse despite full knowledge of Gamescom, citizencon and 3.0 release funding spikes?

  Personally I am very interested what sweet lies CR will tell us at Gamecon and Citcon this year to hype up backers and get their money, especially if v3.0 turns out to be missing a lot of promised features, deadlines (dec 2016 for v3.0 was promised last year :D) and will run <30fps...     
And where is SQ42 in 2017...dead ?!

Serendipity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #608 on: August 01, 2017, 02:51:50 AM »
  Do you still, honestly expect imminent financial collapse despite full knowledge of Gamescom, citizencon and 3.0 release funding spikes?

  Personally I am very interested what sweet lies CR will tell us at Gamecon and Citcon this year to hype up backers and get their money, especially if v3.0 turns out to be missing a lot of promised features, deadlines (dec 2016 for v3.0 was promised last year :D) and will run <30fps...     
And where is SQ42 in 2017...dead ?!

I'm not going to defend Chris' timeframe estimates because they're patently awful but I'm also not going to concede he's definitely lied either. It's possible he lied outright and doesn't care about backlash from his community when the estimated dates come and go, (notice the word estimate there, no promises ever get made), but I'm not sure that's the most feasible explanation. It's more likely their internal schedule, now public, was and still is, overly optimistic and aggressive but he threw it out there anyway. I don't know. I don't really care. We got AC in the end. We got 2.0 in the end. We got Star Marine in the end. We'll get 3.0 in the end. Good things come to those who wait.

FPS will improve with better netcode being worked on so it might be performance poor although on the other hand Sandi's twitter post about the multi player test recently looked to be doing ok.

Squadron 42 isn't coming this year imho, not enough hype and promotion now for an end of year launch. Again, not the first studio to suffer delays and they won't be the last. They are building two games with never done before cryengine technology. I can give them a break. I'm in no rush.

GaryII

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #609 on: August 01, 2017, 03:12:20 AM »
FPS will improve with better netcode being worked on so it might be performance poor although on the other hand Sandi's twitter post about the multi player test recently looked to be doing ok.

Squadron 42 isn't coming this year imho, not enough hype and promotion now for an end of year launch. Again, not the first studio to suffer delays and they won't be the last. They are building two games with never done before cryengine technology. I can give them a break. I'm in no rush.

 Yeah, that Sandi twitter clears all up :D

 how many years you are willing to wait 5, 10 or maybe 20 years ?!

 Maybe I am too old school, but I prefer to check actual result and that is 2.6.3 today...that has:

1) Star marine - bad FPS game/tech demo compared to today AAA fps games - game mode that nobody asked for..
2) PU - with almost no gameplay not even one star system is finished...
3) and other "tech demo modes" AC and racing...

 and all this after 5+ years dev time and 155m backer money + loans.....I say not a good result..

 In the end - looks like after No Man Sky fiasco some people like always did not learn anything and still believe in hype and empty promises...   

Motto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #610 on: August 01, 2017, 03:29:13 AM »
The main poblem with NMS was the same as now with SC. The hype got really big with things that weren't in the game. They weren't promised, but people started to speculate and to dream. And then the speculations got bigger and bigger and the expactations got higher and higher and then the game was released. And it did and it showed everything (almost) as promised. None of the self-invented hype was in it, and that's when lot's of people started a mayhem.

Basically, the same will happen with SC. The big difference being that NMS actually came out and is still being developed and supported.

Here's one happy camper though  :lol:
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 04:06:21 AM by Motto »

Ghostmaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #611 on: August 01, 2017, 03:45:00 AM »
Professionals don't make "errors" so often.

It is the very essence of being professional to know what you are doing MOST OF THE TIME !

Reminds me of something I heard once.

Amateurs practice until they get it right.
Experts practice until they can't get it wrong.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #612 on: August 01, 2017, 04:16:24 AM »
The information available at the time was that CIG held end of year sales that raised millions. It had happened the last two years and was about to happen again. What analysis didn't spot this very simple and obvious fact? Analysis that was patently useless.

And that changes the analysis how exactly?

Pay attention. If whales weren't still giving them money AFTER they had already raised $65M which was to build the fully over-scoped game, the project would most likely be dead by now, as that was over two years ago.

When a Wall St analyst flags a stock as a sell, do you think it remains as a sell forever, or is it based on a "going concern" which can change at any time? That's how that works.

Your comment about being over budget are ridiculous when it's on record that they will use all money raised to make the game. Just because they stopped stretch goals at 65 million, doesn't mean that was the game's budget. The budget is set by the backers. The backers keep funding. The budget keeps increasing. It's quite simple. 'Late' could be argued the same.

That's pure an utter rubbish, and I'm sure you know it.

The full scope as of Nov 2014, was $65M. That's the budget. Just like when he asked for $2M on Kickstarter.

To suggest that he needed more, but just asked for less, is as ridiculous, as it is insane.

Backers giving money isn't increasing the budget; it's them buying stuff that's on sale. That's how DLC works. Except that in the case of Star Citizen, it's all pre-purchase with hopes that it actually ends up in the game. What makes you think if they weren't selling things, that backers would still be giving them money? How does that actually work?

Christ, even Roberts has gone on the record claiming that if the project was more than 2-3 years, it would be stale; and that the increased scope won't change the delivery schedule, and that....forget it, you know all this stuff already.

Saying 'if backers stopped giving them money' is like saying if the Earth's atmosphere suddenly had no oxygen we'd all die. Well duh! Why would anyone think funding would instantly dry up after making 30+ million a year for a couple of years? That's shockingly bad analysis. So you say in a way you were right...whilst being completely wrong! By an order of magnitude almost so far. 3 months projected, currently not far off being 30. And you say I should get a grip?

Either you're not very bright, are delusional, or you're just trolling us. You're changing the subject and making it about something else. Fact is they asked for an amount of money, then got more based on promises which were tied to the increase in scope. Beyond the scope, any additional money increases the budget.

It's amazing to me that you believe that a movie production with a $100M budget, that needs $50M more to complete, isn't over budget because the production company just happened to have an extra $50M lying around, or coming from loans and/or investments.

Companies are in the business of making money. The project didn't keep raising money on it's own by doing nothing.

During KS it raised money based on stretch goals to $6M.

After KS is continued raising money based on stretch goals to $65M

Then it continued raising money based on sales of JPEGs, which some of them turned into 3D models, which some of them ended up in the game. Now they're at $155M.

By all accounts, at $65M which was the FULL AND COMPLETE BUDGET for the game, it's now $90.5M OVER BUDGET. And that's an indisputable fact.

Like I've said before, we'll have to wait and see. There is no other option. We wait and if they collapse before producing games, you were right. If they don't and we're still here discussing the game and company in 12 months, then I guess you were wrong.

Why would I be wrong if we are here in 12 months? Not all scams are short term.

I would be wrong if they ever shipped the game pitched. By the fact that they've cut out most of the original features, coupled with the fact that they have switched engines, raised more than my $150M projection etc, has proven me right already. Those were my original claims since July 2015. The only thing left now is to see how long they last before they collapse because only zealots expects that there will ever be anything resembling a "game" coming from this train wreck.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 04:18:36 AM by dsmart »
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

dsmart

  • Supreme Cmdr
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
    • Smart Speak Blog
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #613 on: August 01, 2017, 04:38:09 AM »
Pretty much every game of the last 10 years has been delayed from the original projections. Is there not a single professional within the gaming industry? Derek's own LOD has a trailer saying 2012 without release even now. It's par for the course.

That's a false equivalent.

Comparing an indie game to one with a triple-A budget and team to match, is a non-starter, and a flawed argument. Yet you guys keep doing it.

Considering that this is LoD changelog (be sure to go to the archives), while this is Star Citizen changelog. At peak, we were less than 16. They were over 500.

LoD has a fixed budged, a fixed design scope which hasnít changed, and 3000AD isnít beholden to the public for its funding, scope, or delivery schedule. And by the very nature of Early Access, I could cancel it tomorrow, or keep it going for the next decade, with zero repercussions as thatís the difference between Star Citizen and LoD.

I sell my games. I donít and never have crowd-funded them.

LoD was in Early Access when we enabled SteamWorks backend for testing, and those who wanted to get in on the ground floor, were able to buy in if they so choose. We switched to CBT when we were done and had enough metrics to continue with our backend testing.

It was never on Greenlight

It was never in crowd funding

Early Access isnít crowd funding

Saying that just because games can be delayed, so it's OK for Star Citizen to be delayed, is just you people making excuses. Delays are perfectly OK. However, in the case of Star Citizen, it's more about the lies and the over scope, than it is about the delays. Too bad you can't see that.

No answers for my questions? I'll ask again for ease. What kind of financial analysis missed the previous 2 years funding spikes and didn't factor them into projections? Is it the same analysis you're using to this day for your predictions? Do you still, honestly expect imminent financial collapse despite full knowledge of Gamescom, citizencon and 3.0 release funding spikes?

Because CONSISTENTLY selling JPEGS in order to raise money was NOT a thing in Oct 2015. And as with all things related to analysis, could never have been factored into the premise. Then you add in the fact that a group of whales, some of who we suspect are engaged in money laundering, would continue to buy JPEGs. That's how analysts engaging in futures, stock shorting, and hedge funds, predict trends. Based on the info you have, you either gain or lose. This is why subtle things like a buyout rumor, or a key hire, can tank a stock. As I type this, Wells Fargo stock just took another dive because another fiasco (auto loan insurance) was just discovered. Why didn't analysts predict that after the last two Wells Fargo fiasco in the past months which led to firings, huge fines etc, that would would be another one that nobody saw coming?

Bonus question: What was the event that is causing the extinction and where is this extinction if, as is becoming obvious, due to aforementioned upcoming funding spikes, they 'survive' into next year?

The Star Citizen Extinction Level Event, has been explained many times already. It is an on-going process that started when Chris Roberts increased the scope of the game, using an incapable engine, which increased the time to delivery, thus increasing the CHANCES OF FAILURE. As an E.L.E. by definition is a gradual process, that's how I created that analogy back in April 2016.

Bonus Reading: Wikipedia - Extinction Level Event
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's a TV show about a bunch of characters making a game. It's basically "This is Spinal Tap" - except people think the band is real.

Serendipity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Star Citizen - The Game
« Reply #614 on: August 01, 2017, 05:22:48 AM »
FPS will improve with better netcode being worked on so it might be performance poor although on the other hand Sandi's twitter post about the multi player test recently looked to be doing ok.

Squadron 42 isn't coming this year imho, not enough hype and promotion now for an end of year launch. Again, not the first studio to suffer delays and they won't be the last. They are building two games with never done before cryengine technology. I can give them a break. I'm in no rush.

 Yeah, that Sandi twitter clears all up :D

 how many years you are willing to wait 5, 10 or maybe 20 years ?!

 Maybe I am too old school, but I prefer to check actual result and that is 2.6.3 today...that has:

1) Star marine - bad FPS game/tech demo compared to today AAA fps games - game mode that nobody asked for..
2) PU - with almost no gameplay not even one star system is finished...
3) and other "tech demo modes" AC and racing...

 and all this after 5+ years dev time and 155m backer money + loans.....I say not a good result..

 In the end - looks like after No Man Sky fiasco some people like always did not learn anything and still believe in hype and empty promises...   

1) FPS was part of the original pitch. It's one of the reasons I backed. Getting out of your seat and shooting stuff. Best way to include it is to make a separate 'module' for testing. I see no problems here. Yes it's bare bones but stuff will be added in time.
2) 2.0 was about getting the large map working. 3.0+ is about adding game play.
3) Yes...and? Both good test beds for tweaking and balancing.

Quote
And that changes the analysis how exactly?   

You guaranteed they wouldn't last 90 days. Shortly after your utterly unfounded and ridiculous claim, CIG did what they'd done for the previous two years and held sales that earned them around 10 million in a couple of months. Even if they literally had nothing when you made the claim, the knowledge of upcoming sales should have been used to realise they'd probably survive a little longer than 3 months. Terrible, terrible analysis.

Quote
That's pure an utter rubbish, and I'm sure you know it.

The full scope as of Nov 2014, was $65M. That's the budget. Just like when he asked for $2M on Kickstarter.

To suggest that he needed more, but just asked for less, is as ridiculous, as it is insane. 

Are you suggesting that nothing has changed in the game since the last stretch goal? They haven't changed from research into PG planets to getting it done? This didn't increase the cost of making the game? No land bikes or vehicles have been added? No new ships? Did they all arrive for free? More money received getting used to build more content is exactly what an increase in budget means. They aren't pocketing the difference but using it to build more stuff. Now you're just being silly.

Quote
By all accounts, at $65M which was the FULL AND COMPLETE BUDGET for the game, it's now $90.5M OVER BUDGET. And that's an indisputable fact.

No no and no. 65 million was when they stopped doing stretch goals. They've always said that every penny received during development would go towards development. That's increasing the game's budget as more money becomes available. Even sillier.

Quote
  The only thing left now is to see how long they last before they collapse because only zealots expects that there will ever be anything resembling a "game" coming from this train wreck.

You're letting your confirmation bias shine through here, it's dazzling. You've been spouting this nonsense for 2 years and the game is still getting made. 3.0 is on the way and funding continues. Your opinion is fine and all but there's rather a lot of people still expecting and believing a game is on it's way. They ain't all zealots. Hyperbole, heresay and confirmation bias skewed opinion is all there is to see here.

Quote
Because CONSISTENTLY selling JPEGS in order to raise money was NOT a thing in Oct 2015. And as with all things related to analysis, could never have been factored into the premise. 

Pure lie. Have a look here and notice very regular sales from around June 2014.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207

Quote
  That's a false equivalent.

Comparing an indie game to one with a triple-A budget and team to match, is a non-starter, and a flawed argument. Yet you guys keep doing it. 

That's not what I'm doing. I'm comparing estimated release dates not the games themselves. Come on, try harder, this is too easy. You projected, 'join the fight 2012', I'm sure you don't need me to link your own video. It's 5 years+ past that. It doesn't matter what size studio or what type of game. Your projection was way off, there's was too. Other devs and companies also get it wrong all the time. How you fund development is totally immaterial to the fact your release projection was massively wrong.

Quote
Saying that just because games can be delayed, so it's OK for Star Citizen to be delayed, is just you people making excuses. Delays are perfectly OK. However, in the case of Star Citizen, it's more about the lies and the over scope, than it is about the delays. 

Are you serious? You can't be. Delays are ok but for this one example they're not? Puh-leeease. Let's at least try and treat everyone via the same standards shall we? Did you lie when you added 2012 to your video? Was that a deliberate attempt to make people buy your TAK stuff knowing full well it wasn't ready to release? Shall I take to twitter and call you a lying bastard and scam artist?

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk