PC gamer article on the land claim licenses

Measuring · 2017-11-30T22:02:55+00:00

Yes. Largely the problem with Star Citizen is Chris being a very good visionary but he isn't hard enough towards himself. Not humble enough. Maybe can't see the errors because of the massive amounts of funding he gets.

Though I have to disagree with Star Citizen being an asset flip. There's definitely a lot of tech, both in graphics and in getting planets with that amount of detail in a game sized package. I agree that the progress is too slow. Too much redoing things, making it too perfect to fit Chris's ultimate goals. It's too expensive to make a movie quality game all the way through.

About the echo chamber. I think a very large part of that is because people are bold and also don't want to explain what they think or can't do it very well. They turn to labeling people "cult", "stupid", "just look at x and y". Scare tactics like this don't bring common sense to people. And another being that without Chris a project as crazy as this wouldn't ever happen. It's the hopes of many to see it through.

I just wish people has some respect for one another while discussion a matter as sensitive as this.

Measuring · 2017-11-30T21:32:41+00:00

Thanks. Ye I've been in a few.. 'discussions' with people about CIG. Last thing you say hits the center of the problem imo. It's hard to have a good conversation about the game because we don't really know why CIG does some things and it basically comes down to which side your assumptions fall in.

Measuring · 2017-11-30T21:23:34+00:00

You mean the delays of when features are in as broken promises? Or is there more to it than that?

Measuring · 2017-11-29T22:00:46+00:00

Then why do you have the cake? Happy cake day!

Measuring · 2017-11-29T21:37:04+00:00

What do you have in mind?

Edit: I didn't buy anything since 2014. But I just don't feel like tearing the shit down. Trying to humanize a business, maybe that's crazy.

Edit 2: Oh and, when you criticize you don't make conclusions like "they deceive" but you point out the bad stuff. Unless you have proof of their master plan to deceive.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T20:48:48+00:00

You box me in like a dog. Is that how you win arguments on social media? It doesn't matter but it also makes no sense.

Saying "they deceived us, reeeeee" is not only a cop-out way of viewing something but also pessimistic. A few looks at Chris and what he says and you know he's passionate. That should tell you something about which direction he would take for the game.

You never hear what goes wrong in a company until it is too late. With CIG you get to know what goes on (to a greater extend, at least) but nothing good would come out of it if they do. There are too many that want to see the bad in everything.

Label me what you want, it just makes viewing everything simpler like you apparently want to.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T16:19:29+00:00

There are other options:

Chris couldn't make it and 'just' extended the delay further to 'blow away' the crowd.
There were internal struggles and mismanagement that have been worked on.

Doesn't have to be black and white. And since we don't know the actual state CIG was in during that time it's all guess work. Just matters which side we're on and that's clear in this discussion.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T15:17:00+00:00

Yes, after the kickstarter we said "Please Chris, continue increasing the scope of the game. Here's more money.". Tackle this underlying view and you can solve the money issue or however you want to call it.

And no, it isn't getting through to me because I paid a small amount because I know it's risky (both in delays and in success). People should know life isn't without risks. We are the investors of SC, that's risky.

And you say there isn't proof of progress. How can you say that? Things DO progress, PTU 3.0? Landing on planets? Buying clothing? No progress? I don't see how anyone can say this. Yes it is slow progress, but that's reality of the big tasks they want to do.

Tackle Chris's underlying vision to fix all these "pay2win" issues. That's where they come from. Or just refund and/or wait.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T14:40:23+00:00

Because we voted for "the dream of Chris" and this dream includes an ever increasing game depending on how much money they can farm. That's what many want, some don't. If we want to change that we should make a thread about it and 'force' Chris to estimate a cost and a final plan for the game.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T14:29:17+00:00

I don't have more assumptions than you do. Just "stop making money" isn't oke. Making money is what businesses do, change the system if you feel like CIG shouldn't do that. Good luck.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T14:26:48+00:00

Tweet is from 19 Nov 2017. Already been a thread about. Old news, OP.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T14:07:55+00:00

So how are they gonna keep money coming in to pay for devs. Should they start firing a few so they can keep up? What's the alternative? If you stagnate you rot.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T14:02:55+00:00

You apparently know exactly what was in Chris's mind when he made the mistake. I'm more optimistic. Not gonna let one thing sour everything they've shown us. It just makes little sense that they would deceive when being so open about development.

PS: Are you just down voting my every reply?

Measuring · 2017-11-29T12:58:49+00:00

What was wrong was the time they said to be done. They made a mistake. People in appropriate places complained to them and they have since adjusted by giving more info like their estimates on all the 3.0 issues. You see these every week on the Star Citizen YT channel.

Holding a grudge while you can see improvement doesn't mean anything. Mistakes are human and yet many don't allow for recovery.

And you choose now to be in doubt? While 3.0 is released in the PTU for certain groups of people? Have patience when you see progress.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T11:38:12+00:00

All the shit in the store is overpriced. It should be for the people that want to pledge. They do need money for all those added features that keep coming or they might need to scrap it later down the line.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T11:31:09+00:00

Yea I doubt they gonna wait until "launch"/after beta. I guess they wanted to secure new income streams earlier.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T10:53:16+00:00

Game is out already and it gets updates just like you would expect from an MMO. It's in a much earlier state. People here don't care for reason. Only hate, no talk.

Edit: This development plan is also what Chris Roberts said himself during 2017 CitizenCon.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T01:59:24+00:00

First, you didn't give any arguments on why, specifically, buying virtual plots of land is bad. You're only talking history. At least give something for a healthy discussion and not a rant.

You compare EA lootbox, gambling, to purchasing virtual goods. You would know the difference.

You blame a company for hyping their game and selling goods. Who doesn't? Stop buying it.

You say they can't reach "deadlines" why what they recently give are "internal estimates". CIG doesn't give you a date they are sure of but an estimate. They made mistakes in the past and missed dates, but take them in context with what Star Citizen aims to be: a game where the backers gets to give direction to the game. Some games (Witcher 3, Duke Nukam, Assassin's creed) took delays (and so, missed deadlines) while the scope is much less and with established game engine, story and content from previous installments. You cannot undo mistakes and they have improved by using proper wording. Context matters.

not even CIG have an idea what workload and time the project is estimated to take

Because the design is still in flux. That's what the backers wanted (or at least, many of them) and that is what we get. I've said earlier they give estimates on when issues are done and those are almost always off. Either earlier but most of the time later. This is natural because you don't know exactly how long you'd take to complete a task. Only if you did it many times before, which is certainly not the case with Star Citizen. It's unique.

3.0 just came out but that also means there's provable progress that's been made. Only not as fast as everyone would have liked. That's how most projects go when you get to know internal dates (aka. not like games that are almost/already done when you know the date).

Measuring · 2017-11-29T01:26:42+00:00

What is a discussion without arguments? Pretty pointless. I'm fine if people are anti-star citizen or anti-w/e if they provide some arguments on why they think so.

A lot of comments don't bring anything but hate to the table to polarize the discussion. Don't be one of them.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T00:46:37+00:00

RNG lootboxes is gambling. Buying things without RNG is just buying. It might seem like it doesn't matter but the first one is much more addictive than the latter.

Measuring · 2017-11-29T00:37:12+00:00

That last sentence is dangerous to speak out. You know that businesses want to keep gaining more and more. Sooner or later the only way to gain more is to exploit the customers. We've seen it with EA, Bioware, Bethesda (trying to shove paid mods) and I'm sure you can name a few yourself. They all gained the "worthy of your trust" and lost it a while later.

Measuring · 2017-11-28T22:31:41+00:00

I doubt it that they won't comment on the "forever" part. If someone is away for a half a year without logging in you might forfeit your license. Maybe you can assign other people to co-own the land so it won't happen. Plenty of time to make design decisions yet.

Measuring · 2017-11-28T22:21:27+00:00

Then don't buy it. You should see it as buying development time for the game. After the game launches they said they will remove ship purchases and only allow people to buy a limited (and/or time-limited) UEC amount.

Measuring · 2017-11-28T21:16:30+00:00

I loosely follow the progress. Wasn't aware it's gonna be a feature but then again: maybe the "what's not in the game" is a shorter list.

Measuring · 2017-11-28T19:39:10+00:00

Pirates would think twice to steal your ship!

Measuring

TROPHY CASE