Star Citizen

Discussion in 'PC Games' started by Mikuji, Oct 10, 2012.

  1. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Brisbane
    You can't read can you?

    In this post I am specifically saying that Eve Online type battles are not possible in Star Citizen

    Eve Online Battles have thousands of people in them. This is not going to happen in Star Citizen.
     
  2. Smegenstein

    Smegenstein Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,099
    Location:
    Hobart - TAS
    Yes, well obviously if you play the game for hours you will see many people over that time, I was obviously not referring to that, that would just be overall player base....if that is your metric then Overwatch is massively multiplayer.... Like I just wanted a space MMO with huge space battle (32 is not huge in my mind). In it's current state, it seems this game will not be able to deliver that for me, that my change over time but we cannot possibly know that.
     
    Fortigurn likes this.
  3. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Yup well I agree.

    With the big mother ships in the game, something like 100 players would be nice. I can just imagine a 60 man squad teaming up on multiple motherships.

    They've done 50 players with some success, I have no idea what we'll end up with.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2018
  4. XanaTos

    XanaTos Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,150
    Really? you're doing well making stuff up so far, why stop now?
     
    Fortigurn likes this.
  5. PsychoSmiley

    PsychoSmiley Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    7,145
    Location:
    Taranaki, New Zealand
    The way SC has been talked up right now I'd expect it to service me while playing it.
     
  6. bassyblue

    bassyblue Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    Adelaide
    But you’ve repeatedly gone on about their predatory monetization practices and yet have no problem with crowdsourcing?

    Do you not understand how you’re being confusing? It’s more like you take issue specifically with them getting funding by the selling of ships.
     
  7. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Whats funny is that being funded by ships is literally the kickstarter, how can you have issue with the reason the game even exists?

    These people would probably instead be happy with a 2D retro pixel shooter set in space called Star Citizen, as long as its not funded by buying ships of course.

    And this is where it loops back around to these people having a big cry because they don't want to play an MMO where they are not #1 in the game. Little do they realise that to stay #1 in any other game, you have to play 20 hours a day.

    Of course we are going to get those same people then saying "but buying ships is going to be allowed after release" when in reality they are just making up facts to suit them.
     
  8. Fortigurn

    Fortigurn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    13,327
    Location:
    taipei.tw
    Yes. I don't have a problem with crowdsourced funding if it's done ethically.

    No. Nor do other people. If you can't understand the difference between crowd sourced funding and the kind of predatory monetization practices to which literally thousands of gamers object, then I can't help you.

    I think the way they are selling ships is unethical, as I've said before. That's what I object to.

    You might not have noticed that the Kickstarter ended some years ago, and at the time they announced they had all the money they needed for the game. The predatory monetization practices they've engaged in since are nothing to do with the Kickstarter, and just standard industry price gouging practices, like every other exploitative publisher.

    CIG's history with this game is a laundry list of worst practice by developers and publishers.

    1. Massive unwarranted scope creep.
    2. Repeatedly missed deadlines.
    3. Game still in development hell; only a buggy alpha to show for six years of work.
    4. Some originally promised features now either abandoned or simplified.
    5. Predatory monetization practices, before the game is even out of alpha.

    Yet you still keep defending and praising them.

    Don't be stupid, no one has said anything remotely like that.

    No one has said anything like that either.

    And no one has said that. You're the one who has been making things up, and making claims about the game which you've simply fabricated.
     
  9. bassyblue

    bassyblue Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Backers voted to keep the stretch goals going.
     
  10. Fortigurn

    Fortigurn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    13,327
    Location:
    taipei.tw
    So? When it was all over CIG claimed they had enough money to complete the game with all the features promised. Since then they have increased the scope with features no one asked for, and abandoned or simplified some other features which were originally promised. And they're still asking for money for a game which they said they had enough money to make several years ago.
     
  11. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Source? Because they never said they had all the money they needed. It was always about getting more money. Always

    [Citation Needed]

    Technically the Kickstarter + Investors was meant to be all they needed, but at no point in time was it announced that they had all the money they needed and stopped backers from giving more money.

    They never put a $ figure on how much money they needed, just how much it needed to be kickstartered, and how much for stretch goals, which have no relation to the actual cost needed to implement those stretch goals.
     
  12. bassyblue

    bassyblue Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    Adelaide
    So with the original feature and quality set they were looking at $25 million. Backers voted to keep the stretch goals going. Backers decided to keep giving CIG money and CIG decided they would put all funds received directly into making the game better. It's literally the reason why I backed SC so that Chris could make the game he always wanted. That's the game I want to play and I'm quite happy with the feature creep because we're getting a better game as a result.
    You may not like it but no one has to buy anything other than the base package.
     
  13. Hookimus

    Hookimus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Please correct me if I'm wrong but I am under the understanding that Elite Dangerous was and is not marketed as a "MMO" game. I've always seen it marketed as a space simulator that has multiplayer features and a persistent world
     
  14. Fortigurn

    Fortigurn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    13,327
    Location:
    taipei.tw
    From the front of the Kickstarter page.

    From another of their Kickstarter updates.

    This is from Roberts just last year.

    Source. So he not only said they already had enough money to complete Squadron 42, he said they could use revenue from Squadron 42 to complete the rest of Star Citizen. So that's what they should have done. He says right there they could do it, but in fact they haven't done it.

    I've already linked to the project tracker twice. You never responded.

    Citation needed. Not only did they announce they had all the money they needed, they even gave a release date. They missed that date, and gave another release date. They missed that date, and gave another release date. They kept missing release dates, but they never said "We're missing release dates because we don't have enough money to make the game, you need to give us more".

    They said explicitly that they had raised enough money for the game, and enough money to meet all the stretch goals. You keep speaking for the company without so much as quoting them. An established characteristic of your posts is claims without any evidence whatsoever, from any source.
     
  15. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Brisbane
    https://www.elitedangerous.com/

    From the website description

    <meta name="description" content="Elite Dangerous is the definitive massively multiplayer space epic.
     
  16. Fortigurn

    Fortigurn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    13,327
    Location:
    taipei.tw
    Are you telling me that backers are continuing to fund the game to ensure the scope keeps creeping so the game will take longer to complete? When the Kickstarter finished, enough money had already been raised to complete the gamed and meet all the stretch goals. Since when did the backers say "Don't finish the game, we will give you more money so you can keep adding features and delaying release"? Is that what you told them?
     
  17. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Brisbane
    And this is where your whole argument falls apart.

    The original kickstarter amount was "enough money" to make something

    But they never had a specific budget.

    A specific budget you don't go over when raising money like this is basically scamming your investors/Backers. You are pocketing all the extra money they gave you instead of using it for development. Those backers/investors gave you money specifically to make the game better, not for you to pocket it.
     
  18. bassyblue

    bassyblue Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Stretch goals finished around the 60 something million mark. Are you deliberately obtuse on this topic or do you just want to hate their funding model because you don't like people pledging to something they want to succeed?
     
  19. Fortigurn

    Fortigurn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    13,327
    Location:
    taipei.tw
    You're living in fantasy land. Show me where they said "We have enough money to make something, but we can't say what it is". They didn't say "We have enough money to make something". They did have a specific budget, and they said they had exceeded it. They stated specifically that the Kickstarter had exceeded the sum required to make the game and meet all the stretch goals. I even gave you a quotation from Roberts last year saying they had enough money to make Squadron 42 right now (not "something"), and saying that they could use money from Squadron 42 to fund Star Citizen.

    You haven't responded to any of that, and you keep making claims on behalf of the company despite the fact that you can't provide any evidence for your weird interpretation of what they said.

    But no one is saying they should be doing that. Once again you're living in fantasy land.

    Telling people "We need $X to make this game", and then telling them "We have raised more than our $X", and then telling them "Keep giving us more money to create the game", and telling them "We're going to keep adding or changing or omitting features as we feel like it, and you have to keep giving us money", while at the same time telling them "We already have enough money to make the game, and we could fund the rest of the planned expansion using revenue raised from the game even without you giving us any more money", while still engaging in predatory monetization practices to encourage people to give them as much money as possible, is what many people are calling a scam.

    How is that relevant to anything I wrote? Roberts last year said they had enough money to make Squadron 42 right now, without any additional funding, and said that they could use money from Squadron 42 to fund Star Citizen. So he has said explicitly that they don't need any more funding. They haven't needed any more money for a long time.
     
  20. zbone

    zbone Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,487
    It's kind of a silly argument given it's a multimillion dollar issue and you have no way to verify the results of any such voting.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: