[Megathread] Star Citizen

[masterblaster0]

Your the one giving false information, they stated how long it took to make in the video and you completely ignore it, right out the mouths of the deves who actually made the moons and you still completely lie about everything without no proof.

Doesnt matter when the patch was released the fact is it took 4 weeks to make the moons from concept to completion, there is more than just moon to implement in a game patch.

I am not engaging with you any farther on this matter. You have been reported for trolling for your continual lying, accusations and attempts at baiting.

[Majestic12]

Discussion will only be over when you lot get over your grudge.

Spieling the same misconceptions, inacuracies and baseless assumptions while making up new doomsday theories year after year all to try and justify a strange obsession with hating a video game because it's not "burning" like you have wished for so long will never be "normal" behaviour.

The past few pages, I only dealt in facts and specifics which supports my theory and the only thing you folks have to counter is generalities and feelz.

Except Odeezee, I will give him credit for trying to make definite statements, even if they are wrong and extreme. But at least he states something even if was easy to disprove.

If you really wanted to win the argument or convince anyone that's already not in your camp, you'd argue specifics and facts. Your entire last post was just saying you disagree just because, there's zero substance to what you actually wrote.

With your post, you've now bent the knee and conceded.

This particular discussion may be over, but of course we'll continue in this thread overall. My biggest goal is to prevent people from falling into the trap. Judging by the recent responses from people who don't really frequent this thread, they're doing fine on their own though.

[kenn9530]

I am not engaging with you any farther on this matter. You have been reported for trolling for your continual lying, accusations and attempts at baiting.

I have the evidence to back up what i said, however you have none and then act like a child because you cant face the fact you are the one who is wrong.

The devs clearly stated it took then 4 weeks to complete 3 moons, that is a fact backed up by actual proof. They started in Jan sometime and the video from 28 feb shows the planets complete also. Over 1 month before the patch was implemented.

The past few pages, I only dealt in facts and specifics which supports my theory and the only thing you folks have to counter is generalities and feelz.

Except Odeezee, I will give him credit for trying to make definite statements, even if they are wrong and extreme. But at least he states something even if was easy to disprove.

If you really wanted to win the argument or convince anyone that's already not in your camp, you'd argue specifics and facts. Your entire last post was just saying you disagree just because, there's zero substance to what you actually wrote.

With your post, you've now bent the knee and conceded.

This particular discussion may be over, but of course we'll continue in this thread overall. My biggest goal is to prevent people from falling into the trap. Judging by the recent responses from people who don't really frequent this thread, they're doing fine on their own though.

Nothing you say is backed up by facts.

Your claiming they dont want to complete the game and just care about making money when the money just goes right back into development.

[Cotic]

I have the evidence to back up what i said, however you have none and then act like a child because you cant face the fact you are the one who is wrong.

The devs clearly stated it took then 4 weeks to complete 3 moons, that is a fact backed up by actual proof. They started in Jan sometime and the video from 28 feb shows the planets complete also. Over 1 month before the patch was implemented.

Rofl, he said he aint engaging no more and ur still yapping at him

As the guy said it still required other teams work on it which counts as part of the process.
If a builder builds a house in 1 month but the plumbers, electricians and decorators take 3 months to do their thing it is 4 months to completion. It aint no good to the buyer if it is only part usable. Same with CIG's planets, make a solar system in 1 month but that aint no good to players until the vfx and system guys do their thing and if they need 6 months it is 7 months in total.

Capisce?

[Majestic12]

Nothing you say is backed up by facts.

Your claiming they dont want to complete the game and just care about making money when the money just goes right back into development.

Here are the facts:

• Feature creep is a fact, we went over that on the previous page where Odeezee got blasted to oblivion and Kenn failed to dispel any of the 3 features listed.
• CIG has stated that they WILL stop selling ships once the game goes live., which is their main source of income.
• Space games ARE made for a niche market in the first place, especially Star Citizen.
• Star Citizen and/or Squadron 42 will be PC only, unlike say E.D which is available on consoles as well.
• Backers have essentially pre-purchased the game.

And here are the 3 features I spontaneously mentioned as examples on features that were not in the stretch goals. I could even find more if I actually bothered looking, you know that too.

• Survival mechanics were never a part of the stretch goals. Now it's a mandatory thing. This changed only just in the recent years to be serious and now they're working on implementing it mechanically.
• FOIP was never a part of any stretch-goal. It was just something they(Chris) thought about and then decided to put into the game.
• Player-built structures on surfaces of planets is nowhere to be seen in the list.

You failed to dispel a single thing I said, instead, you tried justifying why Star Citizen would have said features, which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument of feature creep and Star Citizen's continous failure to deliver a properly working game.

You also thought that a limited number of space stations and player-structures on planets, moons and asteroids are the same things when it comes to being a feature AND technical debt. Any developer, which I am by the way, knows that this is wrong.

Kenn, you've been blasted all over this topic and you appear to be the most confused guy here. But please, talk about WoW vs. Star Citizen again, it was really entertaining last time.

[kenn9530]

Rofl, he said he aint engaging no more and ur still yapping at him

As the guy said it still required other teams work on it which counts as part of the process.
If a builder builds a house in 1 month but the plumbers, electricians and decorators take 3 months to do their thing it is 4 months to completion. It aint no good to the buyer if it is only part usable. Same with CIG's planets, make a solar system in 1 month but that aint no good to players until the vfx and system guys do their thing and if they need 6 months it is 7 months in total.

Capisce?

What do you think completion means, it means they completed all the work within 4 weeks, and then it just needs checked in the enviroment its going to be used in.

Here are the facts:



And here are the 3 features I spontaneously mentioned as examples on features that were not in the stretch goals. I could even find more if I actually bothered looking, you know that too.



You failed to dispel a single thing I said, instead, you tried justifying why Star Citizen would have said features, which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument of feature creep and Star Citizen's continous failure to deliver a properly working game.

You also thought that a limited number of space stations and player-structures on planets, moons and asteroids are the same things when it comes to being a feature AND technical debt. Any developer, which I am by the way, knows that this is wrong.

Kenn, you've been blasted all over this topic and you appear to be the most confused guy here. But please, talk about WoW vs. Star Citizen again, it was really entertaining last time.

1. Every game in develop adds suitable features relevant for the game, they dont know at the start what features are required for the game.

2. CiG can make money from subs, buying things from the shop, new game sales and money from all the work from developing the game.

3. Do you have some crystal balls and know everyone in the world thats interested in buying SC.

4. SC at least SQ42 could be put on consoles if they want so you dont know what will happen in the future.

5. Many backers like myself will be interested in paying for a sub also when the game is released so there will be a constant stream of money.

6. You dont know what features were planned to be implemented, so stretch goals are irrelevant to adding features.

7. There was always player owned structures planned.

[Jastall]

What do you think completion means, it means they completed all the work within 4 weeks, and then it just needs checked in the enviroment its going to be used in.

That's like saying that I made a car in four weeks, it just needs an engine now, but otherwise it's totes complete guys.

[Kyanion]

3. Do you have some crystal balls and know everyone in the world thats interested in buying SC.

Do you? You've also made claims about people getting the game when it releases. Accuse with one hand, hide what you've said with the other.

- - - Updated - - -

5. Many backers like myself will be interested in paying for a sub also when the game is released so there will be a constant stream of money.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. These aren't facts you're saying. Just opinions.

[XDurionX]

Stockholm syndrome is still in full swing, i see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias

[kenn9530]

That's like saying that I made a car in four weeks, it just needs an engine now, but otherwise it's totes complete guys.

Completion means its complete, they just pass it onto another team for a final pass.

[Kyanion]

Completion means its complete, they just pass it onto another team for a final pass.

Then that does not mean complete. It means it moved on the next team.

[Henako]

Completion means its complete, they just pass it onto another team for a final pass.

This is such a simple concept, and you're still arguing it.

Complete means it's 100% ready to be pushed to the player. If there needs to be a final pass done, it is not complete. That is what the word complete means.

[kenn9530]

This is such a simple concept, and you're still arguing it.

Complete means it's 100% ready to be pushed to the player. If there needs to be a final pass done, it is not complete. That is what the word complete means.

Complete means its ready but they want to do a quality check first, no different than WoW releasing a new raid and it still requires multiple fixes even after the players are using the content.

When a game developer completes something they always do a quality check on it first regardless.

[Kyanion]

Complete means its ready but they want to do a quality check first, no different than WoW releasing a new raid and it still requires multiple fixes.

LOL Good freaking God man. You just refuse to give up when called on something no matter how wrong you are. Stop comparing SC to WoW it just makes you look that much worse. SC wishes it could do what WoW does.

[Majestic12]

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. These aren't facts you're saying. Just opinions.

He doesn't know what that is.

[Kyanion]

He doesn't know what that is.

I'm beginning to wonder what the word 'complete' means now too.

[Henako]

I'm beginning to wonder what the word 'complete' means now too.

If you move the goal post far enough, you can make anything fit any argument.

[MrAnderson]

The past few pages, I only dealt in facts and specifics which supports my theory and the only thing you folks have to counter is generalities and feelz.

Except Odeezee, I will give him credit for trying to make definite statements, even if they are wrong and extreme. But at least he states something even if was easy to disprove.

If you really wanted to win the argument or convince anyone that's already not in your camp, you'd argue specifics and facts. Your entire last post was just saying you disagree just because, there's zero substance to what you actually wrote.

With your post, you've now bent the knee and conceded.

This particular discussion may be over, but of course we'll continue in this thread overall. My biggest goal is to prevent people from falling into the trap. Judging by the recent responses from people who don't really frequent this thread, they're doing fine on their own though.

Sorry I was on mobile and had a better reasoning of why your post was biased and reashes of the same moot points but somehow didin't save. Yet your post deserves a better clarification despite being clear already thay since you have a special grudge against Star Citizen that leads you into trying to find wrongdoings in pointless things that happen with every other games and create hyperbolic drama has a reason to justify hating on this game and its devs in particular. In short your not looking for honest discussion but solely reasons too atack the game at any cost.

Some points:

- Feature Creep complaints.

Since every game goes through several aditions and removals during development calling out "feature creep" is kinda of a moot
point since it could applied to every AAA game.

A feature you consider "creep" or unnecessary can be a core one for the dev and fundamental for other player fun.

The truth is that you can only fully acess what was considered normal game development upgrades from what was feature creep after the game development officially ceases.

If you try to argue that the adition and changes of features have contributed to increase the games development effort aka time it's a natural consequence of a lot of factors that aren't exclusive to Star Citizen. Seen by the multiple delays in AAA games from the traditional studios or the many crowdfunded mmorpgs that have misses their "estimated" release dates despite not increasing scope as considerably as Star Citizen did.

- No ship Sales after Launch

You wont find a official definitive stance on this because just like game development is mutable so is the business part of it.

Selling starter ships is what they've hinted at. Subscriptions, Credits, Cosmetics are also available already as a way to generate funding.

They had their best funding month last invictus sale / free fly coincidently when they added many ship skins. Imo It's the way to go in terms of revenue. Skins are way faster and cheap to produce than making ships that take much longer and end up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce because they need to be designed, modeled inside and out, animated, have sound effects, damage states and on and on.

You'll easily get more money from people paying small ammounts every week than paying a big ammount one or 2 times per year.

About your math.

Assumptions based on outdated data (number of backers has increased exponentially in the last years alone as the gameplay experience improoved considerably (performance + addition of persistence + content) so the number of backers vs number of accounts based on what Turbulent said back in 2016 is already taking a big leap of faith. Bad faith in your case.

Even so your math puts the spent average in ~200€ which is more or less the norm for crowdfunded games alpha access and peanuts compared with what people pay for AAA GaaS or DLC's.

Star Citizen starter package gives access to all the content ingame now and added in the future. There's no aditional pay to access planet X or feature Y. Someone who paid minimal package 20$ back in the early days does not have to pay more to land on planets, to be allowed to fpshoot gameplay, driving every vehicle he can get into or any other future feature.

If people are spending more is because they like what they play and not because they are forced to.

That's why we've seen funding grow significantly along with the improovements to the gameplay experience.

You claim that CIG has no incentive to release because of money yet games like Anthem, Fallout76 or NMS made more money in a couple of months than Star Citizen did in years.

CIG is actively developing 2 games while maintaining live builds and hiring devs left and right to produce their games. Until CR is happy with it's product he will not release anything for the sake of it. No matter how much people cry about it.

Roleplayers comprise a lot of yhe new generation of gamers and have helped games like DayZ and GTAV shine on streaming platforms. It's absolutely a future form of entertainment in rapid ascention.

- Console release.

Nothing to do with PCMR

Star Citizen as always been said to not be suitable for consoles because the network restrictions and the burocracy on how they operate with updates, questions of parity etc which go against the continuous and ever evolving nature of Star Citizen.

Star Citizen if everything goes as planned will never be "finished" just like WoW as new things will keep being added and improoved as it goes.

Squadron 42 as single-player and "fixed" product makes all the sense to release on consoles if their software can handle it.

If the game came out me and you wouldn't have to pay anything that's right. But we can already play before release and we still dont have have to pay anything else since our basic package gives access to everything they add anyway. Another Moot point.

Also, most gamers dont crowdfund or early access. They buy mass marketed and officially released products.

A good marketing campaign can sell millions of any game. See anthem, nms, fallout etc..

Starter Ship Aurora as most flown ship invalidates the "star citizen players are all whales spending huge ammounts" narrative.

And no not everyone has a Aurora or has started with one. It's a starter ship for a reason and albeit charming the Mustang is more valuable and the Avenger Titan is way nicer.

So yes, moot points mostly and another huge waste of time going arround bullshit topics and non issues.

We get it you dont like the game but making up bullshit reasons to justify that grudge wont make it go away. In fact it seems it only makes it stronger and more prevalent.

[Kyanion]

If you move the goal post far enough, you can make anything fit any argument.

That's the thing, I'm not even sure what football field we're on anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry I was on mobile and had a better reasoning of why your post was biased and reashes of the same moot points but somehow didin't save. Yet your post deserves a better clarification despite being clear already thay since you have a special grudge against Star Citizen that leads you into trying to find wrongdoings in pointless things that happen with every other games and create hyperbolic drama has a reason to justify hating on this game and its devs in particular. In short your not looking for honest discussion but solely reasons too atack the game at any cost.

Yup make sure to start your argument by attacking the person's character. A classic tactic.

[MrAnderson]

Yup make sure to start your argument by attacking the person's character. A classic tactic.

Here comes the defense lawyer...

He himself stated that he was enamored with the project early so much that he spent 600$ on it in the early years when there was barely anything to play.

He himself stated multiple times that he now wants to see the game "burn".

So he's not shy to admit he got hurt for seeing the game change to something that went against his expectations.

That's the core reason of his delusion for the game and why he keeps trying to find reasons to justify that obssession by finding things to hate it.

It's nothing more than a coping mechanism. Hence the need to keep fueling all the wild doomsday theories and hyperbolizing dramas out of moot points year after year. You guys keep spinning your wheels while Star Citizen keeps growing in players and funding. No wonder you're growing desperate.