Return to “Games”

Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3016
Victor Tombs wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:22 am
I for one am always ready to read your opinions, ResultsMayDiffer, I just prefer them to be devoid of personal attacks on and rudeness towards members of this Community. :angel:

Edit: :think: I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned when it comes to politeness.
Victor, I believe your standard for politeness still pertains to current day. Honestly, there is no reason why people can't have a respectful conversation about a topic they disagree about.

ResultsMayDiffer, I understand your perspective and I agree with you that CIG could be more clear about their time table, and should not have expanded the scope of their game to such an extent.

Perhaps the delays will be worth it, or perhaps not. Either way, Star Citizen is likely over hyped in much the same way No Mans Sky was. I'm far more interested in Limit Theory and Skywanderers coming to fruition simply because they are smaller projects which will consist of unique gameplay experiences which can't be found elsewhere.

Time will tell which of these games become great and which will fail.
Image
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3017
Why do people always call for lawsuits when a game is taking too long?


I personally hate the direction SC has gone, I hate the money grabbing attitude, and I hate the (effectively) pay to win model that is being built before their gameplay is even polished enough for me to consider trying.

But I will let them do their thing, because some people enjoy what is there, others enjoy owning things, some just want to buy into the dream. And that's fine.
If the game doesn't come out, or it comes out and is shit, I will laugh and say "I told you so", but I won't be sad that the money I spent on it in the first place was wasted. Because it hasn't been.

I've gotten endless hours of entertainment laughing at this thread, and will get to laugh and say "I told you so" at the end of it all. Both of which have been worth the money I put in.

If you dislike CIG enough, then don't spend any more money on them, or request it back.
No need to put in a lawsuit just because they are being slow, but keeping everyone informed on what they ARE doing.

Some game devs won't keep you informed until release is right upon them. So at least CIG aren't doing that.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3018
BFett wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:46 pm
Victor, I believe your standard for politeness still pertains to current day. Honestly, there is no reason why people can't have a respectful conversation about a topic they disagree about.
I was pleased to read your response, BFett. :D I feel much like Adam Adamant felt at times in the sense of being a man out of his time. ;) :angel:
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3020
I was looking at this reddit list of features they've actually delivered.
2015-07-24 - SC alpha 1.1.5
backend: 16 player AC (extremely laggy above 10)
Are you telling me they've been struggling with 10 players tanking the server for 2+ years? CryEngine, or Chris was the fatal nail in this coffin.

I think much of my early SC posting was an attempt to get backers to hold CIG accountable, I gave up on that some time ago because they are apparently incapable and CIG is just going to ignore their pleas even if I was successful.
But I need to remember nothing will ever make this into the EvE killer we were all imagining even if the company was on board with firing Chris Roberts and getting over their 3d art obsessive incompetence.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3022
ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:14 am
I was looking at this reddit list of features they've actually delivered.
2015-07-24 - SC alpha 1.1.5
backend: 16 player AC (extremely laggy above 10)
Are you telling me they've been struggling with 10 players tanking the server for 2+ years? CryEngine, or Chris was the fatal nail in this coffin.

I think much of my early SC posting was an attempt to get backers to hold CIG accountable, I gave up on that some time ago because they are apparently incapable and CIG is just going to ignore their pleas even if I was successful.
But I need to remember nothing will ever make this into the EvE killer we were all imagining even if the company was on board with firing Chris Roberts and getting over their 3d art obsessive incompetence.
yes. you hate everything in CIG and SC. we got it.
now stop annoying us with it.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3023
ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:14 am
I think much of my early SC posting was an attempt to get backers to hold CIG accountable, I gave up on that some time ago because they are apparently incapable and CIG is just going to ignore their pleas even if I was successful.
Contrary to popular belief, there are many SC backers that are interested in holding CIG accountable. This sentiment is most often found on the /r/starcitizen reddit, although it of course spikes when CIG does something unpopular with a large portion of the community. That said, people there are rather unforgiving of arguments with logical holes in them, debunked talking points, and personal insults, so if you have these in your posts you may be in for a less-than-friendly reception.
But I need to remember nothing will ever make this into the EvE killer we were all imagining even if the company was on board with firing Chris Roberts and getting over their 3d art obsessive incompetence.
Of all the things you could have said, I'm not sure why you chose to complain about "3d art obsessive incompetence". CIG has shown themselves to be very adept at producing high quality 3D models of ships, weapons, and structures. In any case, I can't imagine that the Limit Theory forums are the best place to discuss Star Citizen.

Edit: This seems like a relevant GIF for your ship complaints (credit /u/Ch11rcH on reddit)
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3024
TROPtastic wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:41 pm
Of all the things you could have said, I'm not sure why you chose to complain about "3d art obsessive incompetence". CIG has shown themselves to be very adept at producing high quality 3D models of ships, weapons, and structures. In any case, I can't imagine that the Limit Theory forums are the best place to discuss Star Citizen.
I agree, TROPtastic.

I find the production of the 3D assets to be one of the most satisfying aspects of the development of Star Citizen so far. :) As to the discussion about the game in the Limit Theory forums, I don't believe it's the best place to get all twisted and bitter about the problems CIG are facing. I've known times when there was no one here apart from me. :)

I still consider Squadron 42 to be of most interest to me due to my lack of interest in online gaming but looking at the assets I've acquired for the PU is reasonably satisfying whilst I'm waiting. :angel:
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3025
Victor Tombs wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:32 am
Unfortunately, my Jump Point Year 3 Hardcover book is still MIA. It made the trip from China in record time only to be "lost" in the machinations of Heathrow Airport. :( I'm sure it will be delivered sometime this month.
It must be getting bad when I start quoting myself. *chuckle*

The "lost" has been found! :D I've been informed that the book will be delivered today. Not sure why it has taken this long but it's a relief to know it wasn't really lost :angel:
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3026
ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:14 am
I was looking at this reddit list of features they've actually delivered.
2015-07-24 - SC alpha 1.1.5
backend: 16 player AC (extremely laggy above 10)
Are you telling me they've been struggling with 10 players tanking the server for 2+ years? CryEngine, or Chris was the fatal nail in this coffin.

I think much of my early SC posting was an attempt to get backers to hold CIG accountable, I gave up on that some time ago because they are apparently incapable and CIG is just going to ignore their pleas even if I was successful.
But I need to remember nothing will ever make this into the EvE killer we were all imagining even if the company was on board with firing Chris Roberts and getting over their 3d art obsessive incompetence.
Actually they haven't been struggling with player counts at all. What has been happening is that they've been optimizing and increasing the limits at the same time which gives the appearance of "no progress" but if you increase the size and object capabilities of something by 5000% and you can only have the same amount of people on as you could before that or less... that isn't "no progress" or struggles like detractors such as yourself might think. That's just choosing to focus on different areas. Instead of focusing on player performance they're focusing on game engine performance. How much can they squeeze out with roughly the same effect on players. They're pushing the limits, on purpose.

This often comes down to a glass have empty vs glass half full perspective. Detractors very much view everything regarding CIG as a glass half empty situation, even to the point of taking things that aren't issues and making issues of them. Whereas backers generally view it the other way around. I myself am a backer of a not insignificant amount. I am also a pessimistic realist. I look at things realistically but generally with a pessimistic view. I am very cynical about things. Most of the issues I see detractors (including yourself) bringing up is simply not true. Or at least not true in the way it is presented. Most of your issues seem to come from anecdote, pre-supposition and conjecture. People who said something that you for some reason believe or going into any situation assuming malice and ill intent because well you already dislike them (This turns into a feedback loop very easily btw) or you draw a conclusion from something without really knowing all the facts.

Such as you seeming to take something from two years ago and apply it today as if it is the same thing, based probably on anecdote. AC is and has been remarkably stable in most cases even in 3.0 except when there has been a specific issue such as a memory leak. (which was pretty bad during the PTU)

Or generally suggesting that they have made no progress and still have a very unstable game because they can still only barely support 16 players. Lets just ignore the fact that they have increased the size and object capacity in the game maps by several orders of magnitude while still retaining MOSTLY the same performance. That is disingenuous at best. Possibly deliberate at worst. If it is deliberate then you have an agenda, for whatever reason you are going out of your way to (ironically) misrepresent the game all while claiming that CIG themselves misrepresent things.

Which is actually an interesting topic in and of itself. You want to hold them accountable yet all of the things you claim you want to hold them accountable for really come down to choice. Like their marketing for example. Ooo their marketing is terrible! They pressure people!!! OMFGZOR! Buttttttt that is a pre-supposition right out the gate. You've assumed they're in the wrong before you've even thought about what it is they're wrong about.

I can say as a person who has been involved as a significant backer since the beginning I have never once EVER felt pressured to buy anything. I have seen thousands of times at every corner YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BUY ANYTHING BEYOND A BASE PLEDGE! Now let me break that down VERY simply for you. If someone tells you that you don't have to buy something, then offer you all these amazing cool things for you to buy... even if they turn out not to be very cool... if you buy them YOU are responsible for that fact. Not them. Your "Holding them accountable" in terms of their marketing is really just entitlement. It's something certain people do when they want to shift responsibility (blame) from themselves onto someone else for what they perceive as a bad decision. Star Citizen is a crowd funded project. It can only exist by virtue of said crowd funding at this point. Crowd funding is like investing and like gambling without any of the benefits of either. So it is kind of inherently dodgy, but we all know that going in. The only people who can claim otherwise are people who may have backed without really understanding how crowd funding works. Which is a legitimate issue BUT those people have had MANY chances to pull out up until about two years ago maybe. And even now they can still pull out of they genuinely want to and push hard enough. So that is literally not an excuse.

So when you think about it, you're wanting to hold CIG and CR accountable for your own actions. You bought something that you regret buying and you want to place that blame on them rather than yourself for taking a punt and it not panning out the way you hoped.

Now you say they lie and/or misrepresent. I'd ask you to show where that has been the case? Lying would require clear intent to deceive. I will absolutely admit that they've gotten things wrong. Hell even a lot, but getting something wrong is not lying. You coming here and claiming that they're lying and need to be held accountable is ridiculous because everything that has actually happened is pretty standard with crowd funding. It happens to many of them if not most of them. This very forum you are on RIGHT NOW is a crowd funded project that has been subject to much of the exact same criticisms.

So let's be honest. This isn't really about CIG, Chris Roberts or Star Citizen and it sure as hell isn't about accountability. It is about a dislike. You dislike the project and you like to make that known and I think you like to give people grief who you feel are "white knights" to the project or who in your eyes defend it without cause. Now the problem with that is that many of us backed the project because we believe in it. I can't speak for the others but I defend things I believe in and thus far I've not seen a single complaint of yours that cannot be traced back to a certain individual (Derek Smart) and he is absolutely not a legitimate source of criticism with Star Citizen. He has gotten an insane amount of claims wrong. If you have someone who constantly makes claims that turn out to be wrong, even if they get a few right... you don't keep believing them. Now you might think that you aren't speaking on behalf of Derek or that you are actually really getting your info from someone else or hell even honestly believing that you have come to these conclusions yourself but I can say with almost certainty based on what you've said that IF you have come to the conclusions yourself then you have sought to reaffirm those conclusions by looking up people who are likely associated with Derek. Either that or you literally got much of it from him. Even that video of the guy you posted has a situation that SEEMS clearcut. "Oh he was totally entitled to a refund!" except that's not really how it works. When the games scope expanded they had to revise their TOS. If people wanted out they should have got out before accepting the new TOS. Legally speaking anyway. If they didn't then they agreed to be bound to the new TOS which honestly isn't as sinister as it seems. Offering perpetual refunds is something pretty much no one does these days. People have had their chance to get out of the project. People who didn't take that chance should not be getting given refunds unless they have a really good reason.

Now I want to go into the whole marketing thing a bit. Many people (especially detractors) like to push the idea that they should stop selling ships. That is ridiculous. For a few reasons. People don't have to buy them if they don't want to. This game is very likely a 250-350m game at its fully realized scope. Probably most importantly though is that people clearly want to buy ships/vehicles/etc. You cannot blame someone for selling something when people clearly want to buy the something being sold. That is just plain stupid. So as much as you might not LIKE their marketing practices, they're selling stuff that people clearly want to buy (As indicated by the fact that people buy them). The only semi-legitimate concern on the marketing side as far as I can tell is that they don't sell everything all the time. People like to say "THEY'RE CREATING FALSE SCARCITY!!!". To that I'd say... of course they're creating false scarcity. How else would they do it? These things can be created in whatever numbers they want so any scarcity HAS to be intentionally created. Then there is the other issue. Part of why they probably do limited sales is to have better control of their big cash influxes which makes sense from a business perspective. At the end of the day nothing about their marketing is really an issue beyond the OPINION of people who simply dislike it. Which is fine, you can hate their marketing for all it matters. You're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts. Nor are you entitled to place the blame of your poor spending choices on the company who sold you the stuff.

So yeah, it's been awhile since I've looked at the LT forums let alone this thread but it is really sad that there is one person here who seems pretty hell bent against CIG/SC. As others have said, move on. If you cannot visit this thread without being triggered into your normal anti-CIG rhetoric don't visit the thread. You're more than welcome to discuss here but your perspective benefits no one, that includes yourself. There are people who love SC and there are people who hate it but no one should be trying to piss on other peoples dreams because of what they think about said dreams.

//End Rant
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3027
That was one long wall of text :wtf:

I personally think that CIG are abusing human stupidity and desire to ALWAYS HAVE MOAR SHINIES, but then so does pretty much everybody else these days, and I see no reason to attach the blame to one specific company, especially since they do actually work on their project, and their stated goals are not beyond what's physically possible or practical.
Image
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3028
I could almost feel the Tsunami of that rant building, TGS. I'm not sure if it's good for you to hold back that many words then release them in one go. :shock: But I fully understand your need to say what you said. :thumbup:
outlander wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:14 am
I personally think that CIG are abusing human stupidity and desire to ALWAYS HAVE MOAR SHINIES, but then so does pretty much everybody else these days, and I see no reason to attach the blame to one specific company, especially since they do actually work on their project, and their stated goals are not beyond what's physically possible or practical.
:lol: It's not stupidity, outlander. At least not as I see it. I won't have to grind in-game to get any of my ships and others will/have gain(ed) benefit from my obsessive generosity. Plus, you just can't have enough shinies. :mrgreen:

I'm also a subscriber which helps CIG make tons of material available to inform the unwashed of how much they need an account with CIG. And the company further bless me with little in-game luxuries like posters and models etc. :D

It probably could get better than this but I couldn't find room for physical posters and models...well, not that many. :angel:
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3030
outlander wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:14 am
That was one long wall of text :wtf:

I personally think that CIG are abusing human stupidity and desire to ALWAYS HAVE MOAR SHINIES, but then so does pretty much everybody else these days, and I see no reason to attach the blame to one specific company, especially since they do actually work on their project, and their stated goals are not beyond what's physically possible or practical.
If CIG is abusing human stupidity and desire to always have more shinies, then so is pretty much every other consumer industry out there. Because that is literally the basis on which most consumer industries operate. Which if that is the case, then you cannot really blame CIG for that as they're just doing what everyone else does.

At the end of the day no one HAS to buy anything more than the starter pledge. If people feel compelled to do so because of HYPE or SHINIES or they want to get the next BIG THING in ships that is 100% on them. You cannot blame CIG for that. As long as they don't engage in any fraudulent practices then nothing they are doing is even remotely wrong or bad, and while some have argued they DO engage in fraudulent practices... they don't. The people who think that are people who have likely made poor choices and are looking to blame someone other than themselves for their decision.

There is only one situation I can remember in SC where people MIGHT have had a case on fraudulent marketing practices in the form of bait and switch and that was with the Khartu-Al having one of its seats removed. BUT... that is covered by the big fat "SUBJECT TO CHANGE" plastered all over. Everyone buys in knowing (Because they really can't miss it) that ships will be tweaked and changed in the design process. The whole thing of buying ships early on in concept is taking the same risk on the individual ship as you would any crowd funded project. It might fail, it might not live up to all its promises but you backed knowing that yadda yadda.

There is a game I backed pretty heavily that sounded amazing. It was gonna have ABSOLUTELY HUGE maps and massive game sessions with dozens of players and just be generally epic. This game was Planetary Annihilation. You wanna know what? It failed to meet every one of its promises of grand scale. It turned out to be a fairly small game that wasn't a bad game but it was pretty limited and no where even remotely near what they claimed it would be. Now could I say they engaged in fraudulent tactics? Based on the logic employed against CIG on a regular basis absolutely. It was a clear bait and switch. They promised x and delivered y. Y was substantially different to the promised X. Except that isn't how it works. I backed knowing the risks, I backed knowing that it might not turn out exactly like they promised. I was even skeptical of their ability to pull it off at the scale and numbers they were claiming. But they didn't engage in any fraud or deceptive practices. They promised something that they hoped they could deliver and failed to deliver it. That is the nature of the beast with crowd funding.

So TLDR, no CIG does not "abuse" peoples stupidity. It does the exact same crap pretty much every other consumer industry does in selling products.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: cuisinart8 and 1 guest

cron