Discussion in 'PC Games' started by Mikuji, Oct 10, 2012.
You are, without a doubt, suited to living in South Australia.
So insults are what you have and not anything to substantiate what you’re talking about?
How would you feel if someone who drinks your vodka demands you not spend the money you earned making it?
This is a false analogy. Here are the facts.
1. Two years ago, Roberts told everyone that RSI had enough money to complete the entire game, including all their added goals, and didn't need any additional funding. At this point there was no need to keep requesting any further money.
2. Despite this, RSI has continued to practice virtually every monetization tactic possible, ethical and unethical, in order to continue digging money out of people in return for playing an alpha version of a product which still lacks a definite completion date, and for the privilege of viewing some jpgs of game content, a lot of which isn't even in-game yet.
3. During this time, supporters of RSI have claimed that this additional funding is necessary to complete the game. However, RSI already said two years ago that they didn't need any additional money to complete the game; they already had enough.
5. Consequently, when Roberts spends millions on a house for himself, and hundreds of thousands of dollars paying a salary for his wife despite the fact that she does virtually nothing in the company, it's clear that he is spending money which people donated for the game, despite the fact that he doesn't need the money and obviously isn't using this money on the game; he's using it to pay for the luxurious lifestyle he and his wife believe they are entitled to.
If you don't see a problem with this picture, it's unlikely that I or anyone else can explain it to you. It's more likely you just have a different view of morality, or you don't want to admit that Roberts is culpable of wrongdoing.
So do you think that when you donate money to a not-for-profit charity that no workers get paid a salary?
Ooof. It’s a nice lots of facts there. Facts that you cannot backup apart from the original talk about having enough to finish the game. You know, before they decided to go all out.
You have no evidence at all but claim that all as fact?
It’s not a false analogy. The only way it would be false is if you had proof that CR directly spent backer funds on a house or something. Which you don’t.
Do we need to explain the difference between facts and conjecture?
By the way, remember when you said I sounded like a cultist for saying your youtuber didn’t know what he was talking about?
I went and found that design doc from 2013 that mentioned the design goals For SC components that apparently they stole from elite: dangerous.
It’s a couple of pages back. Perhaps you shouldn’t believe everything you see on YouTube?
Why is it that you in particular demand so much evidence of anything is said you don’t “agree” with but you can claim all this bs as factual without proof?
Of course I can back them up. And it's clear you don't even know the facts. The statement by Roberts was not made "before they decided to go all out". It was made only a couple of years ago.
I have plenty of evidence. Do you want to see it? Note that if you say yes you are acknowledging that you were ignorant of these facts.
Yes, because you denied these changes were being made. Meanwhile, not only were the changes actually made (and this is verifiable), but other SC fans were saying the changes were good, and other SC fans were saying the changes were bad. Additionally, various SC fans were commenting on the fact that SC was becoming more like Elite Dangerous as a result, and some were saying this was a good thing and some were saying it wasn't a good thing. So while you were claiming the changes weren't made, other SC fans were not only acknowledging the changes were made, they were expressing their opinion on them. You just make things up, you don't even try to check the facts.
If you had at all kept up with the discussion, you would know these facts.
1. Elite Dangerous was released before 2013. You can't claim an SC design document from 2013 precedes the release of Elite Dangerous.
2. In that very part of the thread, it was already acknowledged that some of the changes (nowhere near all), being made which resulted in SC becoming more like Elite Dangerous, had been proposed in earlier SC design documents. I even cited this myself. This does not change the facts; that SC was becoming more like Elite Dangerous. In fact some SC backers are saying that SC is becoming more like Elite Dangerous, or expressing their concern that it may end up like Elite Dangerous in the long run. This contradicts completely the SC backers here who insist that SC was never intended to be like Elite Dangerous, and has no significant similarity with it.
You really don't think this stuff through.
Chris Roberts in 2017.
Duuude. I was an elite dangerous backer. Just that alone has shown me how much fact checking you do. Tell me, when do you think the original E : D alpha release was?
You have proof of misappropriated funds? Prove it then.
Yeah and they also said stuff like that even earlier in production. Many times. And?
*edit if you want to take the context into consideration, he also said they would completely scale back production on star citizen to do so.
In 2013. I note you are now trying to change the subject and abandon the discussion of similarities between Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous.
I said nothing about misappropriated funds. Maybe read what I wrote?
You know, the part you ignored.
Alpha release was in 2014. Next?
I wasn’t deflecting, I was proving a point about your fact checking abilities.
“I didn’t say they misappropriated funds, I just they spent the money people donated for the game”.
I also didn’t ignore what you linked but you ignored the context of what he said.
Sorry, it was 2013.
Maybe you weren't on their list? Maybe you were just a low tier backer? Maybe you just didn't follow the development very closely?
There is nothing wrong with them spending the money people donated for the game. I raised no objection to that. So now you can't sustain your claim that I accused them of misappropriation, you have to change your claim to something else, which is equally untrue.
What is this supposed to mean?
Ah yes, the premium alpha that only a few had that was out 19 days before the end of 2013 as opposed to the design doc I linked that came out in march 2013.
If you describe the misappropriation of funds without using the word "misappropriate" or similar, especially without proof, you're still accusing them of it.
You ignored the bit where he said they would scale SC back completely to finish S42.
So we got a release date yet?
27% of Major Systems completed https://starcitizentracker.github.io/
Their "good faith attempt" that lists runtime generation of planets as broken.
And deterministic procedural generation as broken..
Oooh, and broken Mantle promie even though they explained that going Vulkan was better for everyone and went with that instead.
Get the latest SC update today! Features include:
* still in alpha
* more grinding
* still no release date
* more broken promises
* constantly moving goalposts
* $27,000 DLC pack (exclusive to premium Concierge backers)
* brand new game breaking bugs, to complement the old ones you've come to know and love
And much, much more!
Nitpick. Anyone can buy the chairman’s club packs. You just have to mail support.
Based on server meshing being scheduled for 2021, thats likely the year its being released.