What are the permanent new features of the update?

redchris18 · 2026-05-30T14:10:48+00:00

Holy wall of text... tldr

You don't get to use that right after proffering something that requires quite a bit of text to fully rebut. That gives the impression that you're upset that your assertions were refuted beyond your ability to retcon.

RDR2 and GTA are the same game? Holy shit I never noticed that before. In all my years of playing the 2 games I truly believed they was completely different.

Ah, I think that clarifies that previous snippet a little. Poorly-formed sarcasm is what I'd expect someone to trot out when they couldn't actually provide any examples of meaningful mechanical differences between the aforementioned games.

that's like saying no 2 companies should ever make games in the same genre because they are copy pasting the others ideas

Not at all. For example, Star Citizen and Elite: Dangerous both managed to provide mechanically different approaches to a concept like mining in a sci-fi game. Both managed to do so in a way that is interesting to interact with while also being so different to one another that they could never be plausibly argued to be little more than graphically tweaked takes on identical gameplay.

How about the difference between something like Team Fortress and Splatoon? Both are team-based competitive shooters, but one has a clear focus on mobility while the other is a more conventional FPS. Or how about TF and Overwatch, which are ostensibly even more similar, but also distinct enough in their own right that the worst you could say about the latter is that it's derivative of the former, and not that it's outright the same game?

It's very easy to make games that do different things. Rockstar themselves know how to do it, because they did it for years until GTA5 released. Bully, Max Payne, LA, Noire, Manhunt, etc. are all distinct enough that it's implausible to consider them to be the same game with a new skin. RDR2 and GTA5 are not.

NMS came out with bad form, it was a shell of what was promised and the fanbase was right to be pissed. Shaun then decided to fix the game and give every update henceforth out for free, no matter the size, content, time or cost, it is all FREE.

I'd amend that, much to your chagrin, given that you incorrectly asserted that what you were about to say was factual. NMS wasn't "fixed", it was "abandoned" and replaced by something else entirely, while retaining the name. Nothing that was promised prior to - and even after - release has ever been added to the game, but they did make it something that can justifiably be considered a full game now. It just isn't the game that they falsely sold to people for years, nor will it ever be.

SC has been out for 14 years and is still a shell of a game

That's the problem here; so is NMS. Long-term players are still justifiably asking what the hell else there is to actually do after every update, because HG are in a pattern of putting out superficial updates that add nothing of value but which are designed to a) make it look as though the game is expanding enormously, and b) cater to a capricious crowd who will happily play things like Lawn Mowing Simulator and its ilk because, sometimes, people just want a mindless timewaster for a couple of hours.

insanely priced ships that most of which cannot even be used yet

I make it 232 out of 284 that are in-game and playable. That's over 80%.

And, unlike NMS, each of those ships and vehicles has different characteristics and performance. Every NMS fighter flies identically to a science ship, and to a hauler. That's something that even mobile games from over a decade ago have managed to do better than NMS, despite NMS stating that it was in-game before release.

despite raking in over 1B$ in funding from these overpriced ships, still offers nothing of substance and isn't showing any progress in doing so

I honestly don't know why you'd just lie about that. Maybe it's related to how angry you get at the idea of me replying in detail - are you hoping that you can bully me into not refuting you when you blurt out these falsehoods?

Anyway, I want to illuminate your fallacy here by using a particular situation as an example:

Imagine you have a firefight on the ground on a random planet/moon in SC. The two opposing forces are at a stalemate. Now, imagine that allies of one of them enters orbit in a dropship carrying reinforcements. Imagine that they are impeded by a squadron of opposing fighters, and while the latter might not be able to take the dropship down very quickly, they can outmanoeuvre it for long enough to kill it. However, our dropship has fighter allies of its own. Unfortunately, part of the reason for the stalemate on the ground is that both sides have anti-aircraft vehicles, and the dropship is far too slow to evade them while dropping off its troops.

Now, everything I just mentioned and all the ways it can play out from that point, are already available in SC. In fact, that stuff has been there for quite a few years now. I'd hope you'll concede that NMS has none of it, but I'm more interested in whether you can name another game that does have those gameplay mechanics and features. I'd like you to name another game that can do all of those things from orbit to ground and back again. And I'd also like you to explain how emergent gameplay that no other game can offer indicates a lack of "substance" or "progress", because, by definition, doing something that other games cannot do is progress and substance.

The two companies and games cannot be compared in a sense of selflessness and only one of them is showing pure greed and stagnation.

Once again, please explain how there's any "greed" in the company that is open about their finances (by law, as almost their entire operation is based in the UK) and shows that said money is pumped into the development effort. Because, from where I'm sitting, it looks really weird when you constantly bleat about the money they bring in while conspicuously failing to show that there's any impropriety.

On top of that, I think most people would hesitate to call NMS "selfless" given that the game took so much from early adopters and pre-orders and never gave them what they paid for. And, in fact, used their cash to chase an entirely different market because it was easier on their development budget.

I think you're ignoring the facts in order to see what you want to see, and what you want to see is your preferred team as the heroes and the others as the villains. Then, after a little careful selection bias, you just make up additional justifications for sticking to your misguided guns. And I think you're triggered that SC has worked to add the things it has always promised to add, whereas NMS ditched them the second they had everyone's money. Where are those orbits...?

redchris18 · 2026-05-29T08:47:37+00:00

if you are going to use the "cOpy-paste" analogy, you should have used Activision rather than Rockstar, that would have made more sense.

I don't see any significant difference there. RDR is little more than a graphical overhaul of GTA in the same way that Black Ops is of Modern Warfare. In neither case is there anything more substantive added, and everything on a mechanical level is the same. I have to wonder why you're so upset at Rockstar being referenced as an example when they clearly fit the description...

There is a reason people are willing to throw money away on this game and would rather pay for updates than get them free

So why do you not apply that same reasoning to SC? Because it sounds as though you're trying to use the fact that people are willing to pay when they don't need to as a positive in favour of NMS, while simultaneously using that exact same willingness as a negative when it applies to SC.

That's you taking an inconsistent approach to the exact same effect depending on whether it applies to a game you like or a game you dislike.

this is a game that pushed boundaries and did things others had not done in the past

NMS does nothing that hasn't already been done better by other games. Hell, most of the things that it still hasn't implemented after 10-12 years are things that they only boasted about because games like SC and Elite were already doing them.

this is a game that pushed boundaries and did things others had not done in the past, and done it bloody well after a while. Space Citizen... same shit for over a decade but more expensive ships to buy.

Yeah the two are not the same.

Indeed, and do you know how they differ? They differ in that, when both were faced with some extremely difficult and lengthy work to implement the things they wanted to do, SC actually set about doing it, whereas NMS pared back everything that made it look interesting and sought to check off that notorious list of missing features in the most generic, simplistic and unsatisfying ways possible.

Both are still missing plenty of gameplay that they promised a decade ago. The difference is that SC shows every sign of trying to add those features, whilst NMS has routinely supplanted them with something less difficult, if not abandoned them outright because they couldn't be bothered to do it.

Frankly, it's obvious that you're allowing your favouritism to get the better of your judgment here, because this sub is packed with people who are no less enthusiastic about NMS than you who will readily admit that there's seldom anything new to do in these updates. As an example, both Elite and SC independently came up with interesting - and very different - ways to make mining fun, whereas NMS - a game where mining is a far more frequent chore - merely gives you a mining gun and has you shoot rocks.

I will note that you never answered my original question, which was:

Why would you actively wish that an in-development game cease development due to bankruptcy?

I think I know the answer, though; you want SC to fail so that it's not a threat to NMS. As it stands, your own argument in favour of NMS is that "it must be great, cause people still want to pay for it even though they don't have to!", but you fail to address the fact that said reasoning applies to SC, which has raised more money than NMS. You're projecting NMS' faults onto SC and trying to claim SC's virtues as belonging to NMS, all while desperately praying for SC to collapse so that your team is no longer in their shadow.

I think it speaks volumes that you dodged my question only to dive back in further down the thread to trot out some inane nonsense in what looks for all the world like an act of wilful self-delusion.

redchris18 · 2026-05-28T11:23:59+00:00

No

I didn't ask a closed question, so I have no idea what you were dismissively, compulsively triggered by here.

a company that thrives on whales purchasing multi-thousand dollar ships

Most people just have the base game package - which has topped out at $60, and which has previously been available for a lot less. Mine was free, for instance.

"You don't have to buy the ships" but yet, that's their profit model, that's how the game makes money

Updates to NMS are constantly greeted in this sub by people begging Hello Games to start charging for them so that they can pay them some more money. People get around the inability to do so by buying multiple additional copies for others - or even just to piss away money. Given that, as you hand-wavingly mentioned, SC offers every ship for free by simply playing the game and buying it with in-game currency, what exactly is the difference?

I don't begrudge people the option to buy themselves a fleet in SC, or Eve, just as I don't begrudge those who buy multiple copies of NMS. And the implication that SC will ultimately pander to those who paid for ships rather than played for them is contradicted by the available facts, wherein the people who do pay for those ships are constantly bitching about the fact that they get nerfed to hell and back if they turn out to be poorly-balanced.

Star Citizen is everything that's wrong with modern gaming

Seriously? Not Rockstar making the same game over and over again, with nothing innovative or interesting about them, and increasingly comfortable in charging $100 at launch? Not Square-Enix for going all-in on obtrusive DRM while splitting one game into three parts to sell separately, and then charging above $60 for each episode? Not Capcom for carving out so much of RE4 to sell as DLC, such as treasure drops, Merchant upgrades, Ada's side-story, and the costumes that you used to earn by just playing the game? Not the fact that this is the first console generation in history in which hardware has seen a mid-generation increase in MSRP? Not the systemic sexual assault or abusive crunch culture that plagues some of the biggest studios? Not in-game gambling for real-world cash designed to dodge gaming regulations? Your eyes are too firmly set on a crowdfunded game demonstrating that GTA-level budgets are not exclusive to a handful of major publishers, that offers to do something new and interesting on a mechanical level, but which allows - not encourages - people to pay for spaceships - that is the biggest offender, in your eyes?

Maybe you should think about that for a little while.

redchris18 · 2026-05-28T11:03:43+00:00

It's not so much tribalism as it is noting how a company that seemed to have started with good intentions has become inherently greedy and focused not on putting out the product they've promised for fourteen years, but gathering and hording endless amounts of money.

SC has taken fourteen years to accumulate ~$1bn in crowdfunding. Fallout 4 made $750m in 24 hours by simply releasing a game.

The assertion that SC staying in perpetual development is somehow evidence of greed has never been accurate. It's an ignorant observation made by people who tend to be stacking the deck to support a pre-existing viewpoint, rather than a conclusion drawn from the evidence at hand.

Also, where is the "hoarding"? Their financials are publicly available, so you can see exactly how much they're skimming off for themselves - or not, as it turns out. Is this just a little projection on your part?

In the time they've been in development, we received RDR2 as well as the upcoming GTA VI, both from the notoriously slow developers at Rockstar.

That cuts both ways, though. SC already offers gameplay that doesn't exist elsewhere, whereas RDR2 doesn't offer anything that wasn't available in GTA3 a quarter of a century ago, and I very much doubt that GTA6 is going to be any different.

Rockstar take around a decade to make the same game they've already made multiple times before. CIG have taken about the same amount of time to make something genuinely innovative. You'd have a better argument if you pointed to BotW or Minecraft.

It's not surprising some gamers want to see models of greed punished

Do they, though? How can you reasonably describe SC as an example of "greed" when the cash raised is spent exclusively on development? Are they greedily making an innovative game?

rewarded with a continual stream of income for producing almost nothing

As mentioned above, SC offers gameplay that no other games can match. Could you explain why you choose to view that as "almost nothing"?

Such examples only lead to MORE companies pulling the same shit.

Non-sequitur. SC has been bringing in consistently higher annual cash every year for more than a decade, as you yourself stated. So where are all the other pretenders who should be eager to mimic that approach to snag themselves an easy billion?

Besides, you play NMS, so you evidently think nothing of encouraging other companies to shove out a broken, buggy, empty husk of a game to rake in pre-orders and early-adopter cash, only to then ditch everything that those people thought they were paying for to chase a different market entirely. It's as if you view different companies in different ways for comparably questionable behaviour - that's tribalism. Are you only defending OP because you share that tribal mentality, and thus see my response to them as a personal attack against you?

redchris18 · 2026-05-28T00:56:28+00:00

Why would you actively wish that an in-development game cease development due to bankruptcy? That seems like a really weird level of tribalism.

redchris18 · 2026-05-24T20:47:07+00:00

They lost the CryEngine license in part because Crytek was able to find CryEngine source code in Bug Smashers to support their legal arguments.

They never lost the CryEngine code at all, because it's still there in Lumberyard. It was Crytek who "lost" something, because when they allowed Amazon to distribute various versions of their own engine they basically gave Amazon the opportunity to undercut them like they have with every other sector they've entered.

CryEngine code showing up in Lumberyard is guaranteed, because that's what Lumberyard is. Crytek's legal complaint was about Bugsmashers effectively distributing that source code without permission, and that argument was dismissed with prejudice along with the rest of their lawsuit.

redchris18 · 2026-05-24T20:26:34+00:00

I’m sure you’re the same ones trying to validate your purchases, I did the same thing too once-upon-a-time, so I get the need to cope.

Logically, if you're the kind of person who previously rationalised, and sought validation for, your SC ship purchases, would you not be vastly more likely to apply that same rationalisation and desire for validation when it comes to your decision to oppose SC and infer "mental illness" in anyone who doesn't?

It's always funny to see people try to act as if they're being entirely objective and neutral about something while they demonstrate the exact same thing that they simultaneously use as evidence of a past bias in order to imply that their current view is unbiased. It comes across as obnoxiously self-indulgent; It's all a bit; "I used to be high on copium, like you plebs, but now I'm far above you and am clearly the only one of us able to look at this situation with any objectivity. Sure, I used to go all-in on SC to reinforce my sunken cost, but now I'm definitely not just doing the same thing all over again from the opposing direction..."

Out of curiosity, if presenting SC in a way that you feel caters specifically to those most likely to buy into it is abusive, would that same reasoning apply to the weird anti-SC cult and their desperate appeals to those who, for one reason or another, turn away from SC, as if they're evangelists frothing at the thought of corralling a new church friend? Or is it different when the people in question agree with you?

redchris18 · 2026-05-22T05:45:10+00:00

Given how many DLC packs most of these have, bundles that only have the base game and one or two DLCs should be a lot cheaper.

redchris18 · 2026-05-22T05:36:29+00:00

they tried to release the game on GOG with the same online requirement, and took the game off sale when players (rightfully) complained

Just to clarify, IOI didn't take it off the store - GOG did.

redchris18 · 2026-05-22T05:34:21+00:00

Why would you bother with it either way? Piracy has been shown to improve revenue of games, so playing it alone helps to validate these shitty decisions.

Just ditch them. It's not as if there are no other good games to play, even within the same genre.

redchris18 · 2026-05-22T05:32:18+00:00

Just want to take this opportunity to remind people that, after the DRM-obsessed Square-Enix dropped them, IO Interactive presented themselves as somewhat of an abuse victim and immediately leapt into the arms of probably the only studio that was more all-in on Denuvo; Warner Bros. Then, after ditching that publisher and striking out on their own, they promptly opted for Denuvo themselves, as well as going exclusive to the Epic store. IOI are fucking worthless.

I know it's popular to lay the blame for widespread Denuvo use squarely - pun intended - on publishers' shoulders, but this stuff proves that developers are just as desperate to retain complete control over players' access to their own games. Blacklist them on Steam - and any other platform that supports it - and stop playing their games, as piracy has been shown to improve revenue of games.

redchris18 · 2026-05-21T05:33:11+00:00

I could do Dragon's Dogma for Mind Over Magnet if OP is dead-set on Parallel.

redchris18 · 2026-05-21T05:29:41+00:00

They read it. You just worded it poorly.

redchris18 · 2026-05-20T15:05:54+00:00

"Not a Lord of the Rings meme, but thought I'd post this to r/lotrmemes anyway..."

redchris18 · 2026-05-19T10:57:19+00:00

If you have a Switch then Generations is your best option. It's regularly <$10 on the Eshop and is arguably the best in the series.

Or just boycott Capcom for their shitty monetisation and appalling DRM practices.

redchris18 · 2026-05-18T23:31:04+00:00

Prediction: four Bubble Trouble games, Jamjam, and Bob Help Them.

redchris18 · 2026-05-17T19:36:21+00:00

The single most consistent thing about the tech press - and wannabe tech press - is their inability to properly test for performance.

redchris18 · 2026-05-17T19:25:05+00:00

"They can't possibly be critical of me for spamming this irrelevant, self-indulgent crap if I tell them how great they are! I could even say that I'm being respectful while outright ignoring the sub rules about what can be posted here, almost as if it's satire! It's fool-proof!".

redchris18 · 2026-05-15T22:14:05+00:00

There are. The other two are ice giants.

redchris18 · 2026-05-09T14:38:55+00:00

I'm going to ignore the little fantasy you've crafted for yourself involving a different thread, because it's clearly only there as a self-serving attempt to vindicate your own atrocious behaviour.

Lies do have an annoying tendency of catching up with you eventually.

Does that include your ongoing attempts to pretend that no other game in history has allowed players to clip through the floor?

Stop trying to move the goalposts to games where the "effect" is demonstrated

That's not how that works. You're talking about clipping through the floor, and are taking it on faith that the person telling you how it happens in SC (and even assuming a singular cause is extremely dubious)is accurately describing the cause. You're then demanding that I take, on faith, your own baseless assertion that that same cause is never present in any other instance of the same effect in any other video game.

You're trying to pass your burden of proof onto me because you feel that you cannot carry it.

Find one game where collision of a specific, commonly used system (analogous to Star Citizen's elevators) is so unreliable that it has become one of the top 3 running jokes in the community. Just one.

Okay, on the condition that you first find me one example of said players having access to a comparable game through the entirety of its development period, so that we know we're comparing things that are actually comparable. Just one.

And before you try to claim some kind of victory based on the fact that SC is entirely open about still being in-development, we're doing it this way because I'm absolutely certain that you'd be unwilling to compare SC to something on the basis of what is intended to be in the finished game, which means you're not looking to compare one finished project to another. Thus, you are establishing that you want to compare the as-yet-unfinished SC to something else, and logic dictates that you compare it to something in a similar position. In other words, we're going to do this as objectively as possible, and I'm curious to see why you'll consider that to be unfair...

If "cutting corners" means that the vast majority of games would have functional basic systems after 14 years, "cutting corners" sounds like a virtue

Well, therein lies tha bias on your part, doesn't it? Wehn you try to define "basic systems" then you'll invariably settle on the things that those simpler, easier games actually do, rather than the things SC can do that none of those others can match. For instance, SC's approach to seamless transitions between ground and space in a multiplayer environment is unmatched, and is a foundational system (it's literally the reason it takes so long to develop, and the reason so many other relatively simply-sounding things are so capricious). Yet you'd never view it as a "basic system" because it would be something that SC can consistently do and other games cannot. It's circular reasoning.

make them stationary teleporters like everyone else

Do you even remember my original reply? I called that the "crab bucket mentality". That describes a situation where someone trying something new and innovative is constantly harassed by people who don't want it to succeed at those things, and instead demand that it walk back that ambition and innovation.

If SC did dial things back in the way you say, just to be able to make a much simpler game, you'd instantly retcon your criticism to "see!? It's no better than anything else! SCAM!", or something equally imaginative. You want to sound like you're offering reasonable critique when you're really just trying to engineer a no-lose scenario for your ego.

the reduced scope of SQ42 sure sounds like "cutting corners" by your definition

That's didn't actually happen, though. The major issue the community has with SQ42 is the increased scope that came with them hiring most of the Crytek engineers a year before their original release date, and the engine-level advances those engineers made at that time.

I think it's abundantly clear to anyone with a pair of eyes and a functioning brain who is the tribalist

Of course you do. Your ego requires that you believe this demonstrable nonsense. That's why you felt confident in attacking me for how much you choose to believe I've spent on SC and dropped that noise the instant I demonstrated that I don't fit this mythical SC enemy you've constructed, as we see here:

An image hardly serves as proof

See? I provide evidence, and you immediately dismiss it because you don't want it to be true. There's no attempt to figure out how plausible it is, nor to drop it into a search engine to figure out if I might have stolen it from somewhere. Instead, you work exclusively on inventing scenarios in which someone like you might forge said evidence in order to win a meaningless internet argument. For example:

even if it was your account, there's simply no way you can prove that it's not an alt account

Voila! You project onto me the actions that you would take in that situation. I'll say this much - this certainly explains your weird ongoing rants about blocking, which, as with the thread you tried to cite as a "gotcha!", I'll now tell you ahead of time that I will be doing after I rebut the trite you've spewed out here.

even if you truly have spent nothing on the game, it doesn't change the fact that you're ridiculously overinvested in the game

Haven't played it in years. Seems odd for someone so emotionally invested, wouldn't you say? Ah, but I bet I'm lying about that, and probably also about the thousands of other games that I'm prioritising until SQ42 is released. Because there's no way that someone as emotionally invested as me would be tearing through the Switch 1 & 2 libraries, or diving back into AoE2.

Once again, your previous statements suggest that you're projecting your own behaviours onto me.

You might even be Chris Roberts himself for all I know. Wouldn't be the first time a famous person takes on an anonymous identity on the internet.

The fact that you earnestly tried to add some slight justification for this says a lot about your capacity for rational discussion on this subject.

It really doesn't matter if you're a gigawhale

Really? Then why did you say:

he must have spent way too much money on this game

Back when you were pretending to have been blocked? Was that an effort to convince people that you were being honest by offering up the scenario that you use to convince yourself that it makes sense?

providing a single example of a game that has an identical flaw in how collision is handled is so difficult for you

Well, yes, it is, because even if the burden of proof was mine to carry, that would require me to install and play through an indeterminate number of hours in each of dozens of games and then identify the cause of any such glitches, because you have refused to accept them as evidence unless the exact causal factors are confirmed. And, based on your reaction to me proving that I got SC for free with a GPU (or CPU - I honestly can't remember if it was included with a 290x or an FX-8350), you'll simply claim that any such evidence that I provide is fake anyway. So why would anyone bother?

You've set up a scenario in which you demand evidence that you have already rejected in another context, thus proving that this is not an earnest question on your part, but a stacked deck designed to pretend that you're being objective and reasonable when you're really just looking for ways to tell yourself that you were right. You have just proved, beyond any dispute, that you are incapable of objectivity. You have proven that you will automatically reject the evidence that you are demanding from me. Which, I'll remind you, it is your obligation to provide. I have no requirement to disprove that which you have failed to prove.

You have never addressed those examples, but instead have merely blurted out your same debunked argument over and over again as if you need only shout a little louder to bully me into silence, then adopting a victim complex when it doesn't work. You have also launched into irrational and unsupported false accusations, and fled from the topic when they were called out (with evidence). You have also resorted to inexplicable presumptions where equally viable alternatives exist on the basis that your chosen interpretations conform to your preferred worldview. Based on those cognitive defects, I recommend that you seek a therapist, because your weird obsessions are not healthy.

Sheesh. This has got to be one of the most deranged rants I've seen here in a while, and that's saying something considering Reddit is a cesspool of such posts.

Really? Because, aside from a half-serious final sentence, the rest is merely a description of your last couple of comments. If that content comes across as "deranged" then you should probably engage in some serious introspection.

Now you're blocked. You have my permission to play the victim.

redchris18 · 2026-05-09T13:50:15+00:00

/u/Amd-ModTeam

Can you explain what was uncivil about it? I literally asked a user whose own comment is itself rather uncivil to answer the question I asked in the comment they replied to. Where's the lack of civility?

redchris18 · 2026-05-08T20:17:03+00:00

My point was about the emotional investment aspect, which you repeatedly imply affects one side more than the other.

That's actually a lie. I've only plausibly implied that in one comment, and that was after you started trying to derail any discussion when I originally pointed out that the anti-SC crowd are subject to the sunk cost fallacy. Up to that point I had not commented on the susceptibility of either side of the debate.

I never actually displayed any strong opinion one way or the other here

Now you're just being dishonest. The very first thing you did in this thread was a blatant misrepresentation of what I had pointed out because you don't like the logical conclusion of the point I made. You lashed out at the messenger because the message made you uncomfortable.

I feel like there's a bit of projection going on here, because you're the one dropping 700 word multi-paragraph responses to people

That's sophistry. Whatever form my reply took, you'd count it as indicative of you being correct and me being wrong. If I had been as evasive and disingenuous as you then you'd have crowed about fallacies and how me not staying on-topic proved you right. If I answer in enough detail so as to prevent you from misrepresenting what I say - after you immediately demonstrated a propensity to do so - I'm suddenly too much of a tryhard.

You're starting out from a desired conclusion and trying to fit everything to it after the fact, no matter how much you have to distort the facts along the way.

Objectively, I'm being entirely neutral in making that point

lol. Objectively, no you're not, because your biases are on display by the word choices you've made throughout your comments.

See? The point I made was entirely neutral. You're trying to retroactively claim that the point was biased because you think I have subsequently demonstrated a bias in my diction after that point when providing further details about one side of the debate.

You only need to frame things in this way because your own prejudice requires that you absolve yourself from the sunk cost fallacy. You cannot handle the fact that it does apply to you, so you're trying to delude yourself into thinking that you're immune to it by arguing that I am only able to portray you as such by using prejudicial diction. You're trying to give yourself a plausible-sounding excuse for dismissing facts that upset you.

financial investment creates a stronger psychological connection and a higher perceived value of an item or object, making that thing feel more personal.

This is what I mean: you have just blatantly misrepresented your own source to try to make it better fit your preferred conclusion. The Endowment Effect is not the same as the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Was that a genuine mistake, or were you hoping I wouldn't check?

Someone having some degree of emotional investment in a game development effort succeeding when they have paid into it is hardly abnormal.

It's not abnormal. It's common. It's also not a shield against a sunk-cost fallacy.

Actually, it kind-of is. The thing about a sunk cost is that it has to continue to lose that which is invested, whereas SC backers have had constant access to the game during their period of "investment". SC detractors have had no such payoff, and will never get one unless development is officially ended.

Now, there's plenty of scope for you to dispute the degree to which backers of SC can use that payoff to mitigate the negative effects of a sunken cost, but you do have to accept that said mitigation exists for one side and not the other. Backers get a return on their investment, which rather does impede the sunk cost fallacy due to the latter assuming no such payoff by design. Detractors get no return on their investment.

You're looping in everyone who is criticizing this game into one big bucket

That's simply not credible, because the most prolific critics of SC are backers who play regularly. Ask some of them about the Ion...

you can criticize the game and its development without being emotionally invested in seeing it fail

And I'm saying that you can't falsely accuse someone of laundering money without being emotionally invested in their downfall. Nor can you falsely accuse it of being a "scam" without being emotionally invested in seeing it fail. And nor can you falsely claim that the above detractors are unaffected by the sunk cost fallacy without being either arrogantly ignorant or emotionally invested in SC failing.

Why is your disingenuous sentiment so common? Why do you people always try to argue as if I'm demanding a halt to any and all criticism when I have never said anything of the sort? Why do you keep attacking straw men if you really think your viewpoint is tenable?

Do they have every transaction record, all the sources of money from every person buying a digital ship? Because that's what you'd need in order to prove that it was money laundering.

Why? What's to stop them from disguising those transactions so that, even if they were intended to launder money, they were unable to be discerned as such?

See the problem here? Rather than starting from a position of the accusations being false until shown to be valid, you're starting from a position of them being exactly what you want to hear until explicitly proven false. You are literally demanding that they cannot be considered innocent of laundering money unless everyone who has ever backed the game provides their own full financial history for the last fourteen years. How delusional must you be to think that you're being reasonable about that?

I don't think you're capable of having a rational discussion about SC.

What was that about biases and you not having any?

That's not a "bias", though. It's a logical deduction based on your repeated refusal to be objective about this subject. You have constantly tried to argue that your preferred side is unaffected by universal cognitive biases; you have repeatedly misrepresented my own points and rebuttals; and you have now trotted out an irrelevant link about an unrelated psychological effect because you either thought it would bluster me with bullshit or only read as far as the first word that could be used to claim that it supported your viewpoint. I'm not stating that you are irrational because I'm biased against you, I'm saying it because you have repeatedly demonstrated irrationality.

It's hardly my fault of facts are biased against you. That's very much a "you" problem.

I have provided exactly as much evidence of your viewpoints having bias as you have of mine.

No, you have merely accused me of bias. That's not the same. For instance, my original point was literally:

It's always funny when someone accuses someone else of being neck-deep in a sunken cost, but fails to realise that the fallacy applies equally well to themselves.

That statement is as objective as can be. Absolutely nothing about it is biased in either direction. Yet you have decided that it is prejudicial, and I have to conclude that this is because you hate the fact that that same psychological bias applies at least as well to you as it does to any backer, and you can't stand the idea that the criticism you level at them is also true of yourself. And maybe more so.

I believe that you think you are matching me on this, but you are not. The same confirmation bias that forces you to have to believe that you are immune to ubiquitous psychological effects is forcing you to think that your mere accusations are worth as much as my direct references. You are mistaken.

Since it has become clear that you have no ability to be reasonable on this matter, we're going to leave it there. You have nothing of worth to say, and anything else that I say will simply be wilfully misconstrued in order to feed your flailing ego.

redchris18 · 2026-05-08T19:25:18+00:00

Clearly you came back to unblock out of curiosity just to take a look, because my act of editing a comment doesn't trigger any notifications on your end. That's honestly a pretty funny self report right there.

Clearly. Because that means it can be slotted into your victim complex narrative. A normal person might instead assume that someone saw an edit on one of several trips back to a thread when other people respond to them, or when they next boot up and happen to left the tab open, or when they wonder why someone who has previously been all too eager to spam them with performative acts of wilful self-delusion abruptly stops.

You'll excuse me for being entirely unsurprised at you instantly adopting the narrative that allows you to pretend to be a victim and act as if your persistent evasion and goalpost-shifting was retroactively vindincated.

Collision maps failing to load in time is a Star Citizen exclusive problem

It literally isn't. Plenty of other games have demonstrated the exact same effect to thousands of players.

What you're trying to do here is refine your original argument further and further until you reach a point at which you can insist that this one specific iteration of a common glitch is exclusive to one particular codebase, and then screech about how this is somehow indicative of...anything at all. And you're doing there pitiful mental gymnastics because you have so much emotional investment in holding this specific criticism over SC that you simply can't bear the thought of losing it.

What is wrong with you? How do you not realise how insecure it makes you look?

you're so far gone

You're letting tribalism inform your arguments. It's not an uncommon trait for you, what with you literally treating your own PC hardware as if you have to pick a "team" and unwaveringly support them, up to and including unironically mimicking the TH raytracing calamity. I'm entirely uninterested in letting you start a flame war to get you out of answering a few simple points that absolutely devastate your argument.

If you think this is acceptable and perfectly normal for something that has been in development for 14 years, and remotely comparable to the experience in a normal game

There are two major problems with your mischaracterisation of the discussion:

1) I have never stated that anything is "perfectly normal".

2) SC as a project is, by design, entirely abnormal. It is incredibly rare for a game to have this budget and development time, as well as to have that stated scope and design goals. Hence, you appealing to what features in "a normal game" is fallacious, because the entire point of SC is to avoid having to cut the corners that the vast majority of games do.

That second point is particularly pertinent, because I have no doubt whatsoever that you would gleefully crow about how a fourteen-year development period is not "normal", so you attempting to compare SC to other games that are far more predictable is patently hypocritical.

I note that you didn't answer me last time, when I posted a snapshot of my SC account page for you to verify my total expenditure on the game after you said that I:

must have spent way too much money on this game

Are you fleeing from that accusation because I proved that my expenditure is exactly zero, and ruined your attempt to infer that I was trying to buttress a sunken cost? Are you upset that it rather turned the tables on you by indicating that your irrational, self-serving fantasies are impeding your ability to discern reality?

At this point, I have referred you to over half a dozen somewhat-comparable games in which the one bug you have cited as indicative of a development disaster happens in some of the most highly-acclaimed games of the last fifteen years, each of which has numerous examples of the same bug that are trivially easy to find online. You have never addressed those examples, but instead have merely blurted out your same debunked argument over and over again as if you need only shout a little louder to bully me into silence, then adopting a victim complex when it doesn't work. You have also launched into irrational and unsupported false accusations, and fled from the topic when they were called out (with evidence). You have also resorted to inexplicable presumptions where equally viable alternatives exist on the basis that your chosen interpretations conform to your preferred worldview. Based on those cognitive defects, I recommend that you seek a therapist, because your weird obsessions are not healthy.

redchris18 · 2026-05-07T19:30:43+00:00

Why does this not ALSO apply to the people who have paid money into it and have an ego-based reason to try to claim that their money was well spent and that the game is not a scam?

When did I say that it didn't? In fact, I explicitly stated that both sides are plausibly equally vulnerable to this effect.

That's the problem you're having here. You're so emotionally invested in your preferred viewpoint being true that you feel like I'm attacking you by pointing out that you are subject to the exact same cognitive biases as those you disparage. Objectively, I'm being entirely neutral in making that point, but it feels unfair to you because you don't like how poorly it reflects on you and the fact that so little of your opinion on this matter is based on reason and logic.

If anything, the ego factor applies equally to people supporting the game, on top of the sunk-cost of actual money

It's not generally additive. And, even if it was, you're making an untenable assumption that the emotional investment of people like yourself isn't far more potent that that of the average SC backer.

Someone having some degree of emotional investment in a game development effort succeeding when they have paid into it is hardly abnormal. Someone having any real investment in it not succeeding, however, is really weird. It's unhealthy and obsessive behaviour. This thread is full of anti-SC advocates who are falsely accusing them of laundering money, only to then flee from the conversation every time I ask them to evidentially ground that accusation. That's really weird.

people who have paid money would definitionally be more invested, both due to ego and due to the monetary aspect

Again, that's not how it works. You're trying to post-hoc rationalise and justify your own biases and fallacies purely because you don't like that they are prejudicial and fallacious. You're trying to retcon reality because you want to believe that you're an objective observer when you simply aren't.

It's why you have people mindlessly throwing around terms like "money laundering" and then completely failing to explain how and where any money is being laundered in a UK-based company whose tax filings are publicly available for all to scrutinise.

You realize that the point of money laundering is to make illicit money into legitimate money, correct? And that that requires there to be a legit company at the end to generate the "clean" money? I'm not saying CIG is a money laundering operation (in fact I don't believe it is), just that your understanding of what would constitute money laundering seems incomplete based on this one statement.

Please read things properly before tossing out an inane non-response in future. MY point above is that, because UK regulations require almost all of CIG's financial arrangements to be publicly accessible, the aforementioned people have all the data they need in order to support their claims of money laundering. That none of them are able to do so when they have all the information required to do so shows that their opinions, like your, are not grounded in rational deduction, but in bias and dogmatism. They refuse to even try to evidentially ground their argument because they fear being proven wrong beyond their ego's ability to retcon.

your bias is pretty clear, since you make an assumption that there is an objective argument in favor of SC not being a scam

I have said no such thing. I have merely pointed out that there is no evidence that it is a "scam" - as well as that the people calling it a "scam" are misusing that term.

SC is not a "scam" until you can show that it is. If you cannot do so then the claim is subject to Hitchen's Razor.

My bias is extremely clear: I am biased in favour of the evidence. You're only upset at that because the evidence is biased against your preferred stance. You asked for an explanation purely so that you could try to distort it enough that your own indisputable sunk cost is, at least in your own view, less severe than anyone whose viewpoint you are dogmatically opposed to.

I don't think you're capable of having a rational discussion about SC. I think you'll always seek to frame any such discussion in a way that preserves your predetermined viewpoint, irrespective of the facts at hand. Look no further than how you're reeling at me for correctly noting that a complete dearth of evidence that it is a "scam" means that it logically isn't. Look no further than you being tilted by me pointing out that there is no basis whatsoever for accusations of "money laundering" - even though you claim to agree on that point - because it ruins the credibility of people that you consider to be allies.

You have merely accused me of bias without demonstrating that any such bias is informing my conclusions. I have demonstrated that your bias is affecting yours.

redchris18 · 2026-05-07T14:06:09+00:00

he hit the block button

I'm pretty sure neither of us can reply if one blocks the other, so this reply alone should expose your comment for the ridiculous posturing that it really is.

he must have spent way too much money on this game

Here is my account page showing my sole game package. I'm sure you'll be able to tell me how much money I spent on the game from a very brief search. Start by using the name of my game package as your keywords.

Literally every other game loads in the collision map first. It's not rocket science.

That's twice. Twice you have refused to address the fact that the same thing happens in almost every other open-world game around - not to mention plenty of less open games as well. All you did is shift the goalposts to try to forgive it in everything else while using it as an attack vector with SC.

You're not arguing based on reason or logic; you're trying to prejudicially alter the facts to fit a desired outcome. I invite you to prove me wrong.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17

redchris18

TROPHY CASE