User information for Joao

Real Name
Concealed by request - Send Mail
None given.


Signed On
June 12, 2007
Total Posts
104 (Novice)
User ID
Search For:
Sort Results:
Limit Results:
104 Comments. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older
Re: Apple Rejects iOS Steam Link App
May 25, 2018, 03:18
Re: Apple Rejects iOS Steam Link App May 25, 2018, 03:18
May 25, 2018, 03:18
I have iOS devices but It's precisely because of this that I went primarily Android. Apple provides a great user experience and some great services but at the expense of developer and consumer freedom.

Above all, Apple in my opinion resorts to anti-competitive practices to push consumers to use their services over others. Steam link is being locked out of Apple store because Apple considers it a gateway to the steam store.
Meanwhile devices like the Nvidia Shield have no such restrictions.

Re: Senator Presses FTC and ESRB on Loot Boxes
Feb 15, 2018, 17:32
Re: Senator Presses FTC and ESRB on Loot Boxes Feb 15, 2018, 17:32
Feb 15, 2018, 17:32
I think a lot more pressure must be made.

They are focusing on protecting the children and that's not the the only issue.
People of all ages play games. And bringing gambling like tactics to mass market full priced games is a problem.

Besides it is extremely easy to circumvent age restrictions in games.
We all know it.
There are countless underage gamers that play M rated games.

Re: More on Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit
Jan 20, 2018, 21:24
Re: More on Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Jan 20, 2018, 21:24
Jan 20, 2018, 21:24
People. No matter your opinion on the project you just need to read the document and hear opinions of other lawyers to understand that really Crytek has no case here.

To put it simple. Promises mean nothing if they are not written in the contract.

And they are not in the contract.
Consider this very important point.
Crytek never submits the entire GLA. Why?
CIG has submitted the entire GLA and you can read it yourself and get into your own conclusions.
The GLA is shown as Exhibit A:

They have a typical GLA and by the way the price of that license is not a discount. $1 Million entails perks that don't exist normally.

There are companies building AAA games with licenses from Crytek and other companies that have paid far less.

You can check info on game licenses cost here :

And if you want an opinion on the GLA from a lawyer expert on this type of issues:
Re: ESA Takes on WHO Over
Jan 2, 2018, 19:45
Re: ESA Takes on WHO Over Jan 2, 2018, 19:45
Jan 2, 2018, 19:45
I completely agree with the WHO assessment.
Games are addictive and we all know that.

If they weren't people wouldn't invest so much time playing them almost on a daily basis.
With that said, as pointed out by NKD, TV disorder should be included as well.

There is a question that needs to be posed.
If everyone on the planet is addicted to something, do we still consider it an addiction?

The way I see it any form of entertainment can provoke a disorder.
It's not about video games.

It's TV disorder, it's Internet addiction.Social network addiction, sugar addiction.

Is it OK for people to watch reality TV all day?

Instead of labeling game, TV disorder or something just use a single term such as "entertainment disorder" that encompasses them all because the results and the symptoms are precisely the same.

Re: $45K Star Citizen Refund?
Sep 14, 2017, 15:39
Re: $45K Star Citizen Refund? Sep 14, 2017, 15:39
Sep 14, 2017, 15:39
It is understandable. There has been many delays and more people are bound to request refunds.
But lets not foul people. This is a crowdfunded project that people willingly decided to support despite the risks.
Legally, unless RSI uses the money for other purposes other then funding the game development, backers have no case. They are doing what supporters wanted. They are just taking way too long.

What we have here is CIG using good will to try to avoid the issue from escalating.
But let's be clear. If there ever is a major refund rush that puts the game development and the company at risk, CIG will be forced to deny any refunds and eventually this would go to court.

And in this scenario people asking for a refund lose.
Why? Because the scenario is no different than any other investor/stakeholder situation.

This is a company funded with crowdfunded money with 300+ employees,
Investors took the risk. So a judge will never side with the investors and basically provoke the bankruptcy of a company with 300+ employees, multiple partners and providers.

Let's face it. CIG has not retracted in their promises. In fact it has committed to do more with stretch features like procedural generated planets coming online earlier then expected, fully built landing zones and so on.

The only issue is that the game is taking an awful long amount of time to create. And with it, there is mounting pressure to deliver. Much like a publisher would pressure a developer to deliver.
The game premise and what they have shown doesn't look less impressive now then it did 5 years ago.
Just look around in the market. How many AAA space sims you see out there?

This pressure is healthy and must continue in my opinion. And CIG better start delivering more then demos as backers didn't back for an eternally in development early access game. They backed for a finished Space sim game.

By the way, CIG; where the hell is the linear adventure Squadron 42?
Re: Star Citizen Bank Loan Follow-up
Jun 26, 2017, 17:33
Re: Star Citizen Bank Loan Follow-up Jun 26, 2017, 17:33
Jun 26, 2017, 17:33
I guarantee you if he had been given 250m bucks his game would have been completed and delivered long ago. People would still bitch and whine about it but it would have shipped and been playable

What? Perhaps. Who knows!
But given almost all games released by 3000AD have a poor review score. (and I'm not talking about early access), I don't think that would be the best choice.
Just look at the scores on Steam.
Look at the scores on Metacritic :

Still if you want to compare. Chris Roberts left the scene with a company that had an average 80 rating score :

He came back and with people he knows in the industry build a concept for a space sim that eventually raised $150 Million.

Derek could do the same. So why didn't he and his small team build a jaw dropping concept instead of focusing on criticizing other people's work?

Re: Star Citizen Bank Loan Follow-up
Jun 26, 2017, 16:12
Re: Star Citizen Bank Loan Follow-up Jun 26, 2017, 16:12
Jun 26, 2017, 16:12
No matter if you think CIG will or will not deliver the game during this century, there is one think anyone should understand.

Derek Smart is not a credible source. He attracts attention with speculation and fake information.

Remember. Two years ago Derek Smart claimed to have proof of illegal behavior by CIG and that he was willing to take them to court. Nothing happened.

It has been 5 years now. No final game yet. Be it SQ42 or Star Citizen.
Backers have all the right to pressure CIG.

But financial security isn't CIG issue. Nor is talent, or capacity to develop the game.

If this was another developer building a game behind closed doors it wouldn't be news.

It is news, because they raised money from common people to develop a product for more than 5 years.

As someone bellow has said, "I've already considered the money I invested a loss".

Re: Op Ed
Jun 25, 2017, 12:47
Re: Op Ed Jun 25, 2017, 12:47
Jun 25, 2017, 12:47
Obviously, this post was expected.

Let's look at some older articles:

Oct 2015 - Star Citizen is almost out of cash :
Derek Smart predicts CIG will go bankrupt by end of 2015 :

Here is what doesn't fit in all this.
For all their financial troubles, how come banks are still willing to give them loans?
And if they are broke, how have they been able to expand to other nations, build new offices, hire people and pay them?

Apr 7, 2017, 14:02
Re: CD Projekt RED's CYBERPUNK TM Apr 7, 2017, 14:02
Apr 7, 2017, 14:02
I understand why they would acquire the trademark for "Cyberpunk" but it isn't about protecting their investment.

It's about business opportunity.
There are plenty of titles from board games, to books to other video games, movies, that have used the word Cyberpunk over the years.

Examples : Cyberpunk 2020, Cyberpunk (game), Cyberpunk v3, Cyberpunk: The Collectible Card Game, Cyberpunk Book by Katie Hafner.

Going forward, no one will be able to create a book, game, movie or whatever with the word "Cyberpunk" in their title without passing an approval process.

Notice how CD Projekt RED responds:
Use of a protected word in a title may be prohibited only if it could confuse the customers."

Translation : "Anyone who wants to use the work Cyberpunk in their product needs authorization from now on and we will see if we will or won't agree with it."

This isn't unusual.
I don't think they did a bad move here. They saw an opportunity and took it. It is not evil and won't limit others from using.
It just means these others will have to take the additional effort to confirm they can use it. And that alone could mean that other game developers won't use the term in their game titles anymore.

Just like there is only one "Apple" in the tech industry

Re: Star Citizen Schedule, Videos, Sale
Nov 19, 2016, 19:53
Re: Star Citizen Schedule, Videos, Sale Nov 19, 2016, 19:53
Nov 19, 2016, 19:53
RedEye9 wrote on Nov 19, 2016, 17:03:
Alistic wrote on Nov 19, 2016, 16:50:
People do realize it doesn't cost 100 million dollars to make a video game right? They have made enough $ to sustain 1 video game for 50 years worth of development and sustain servers. This is a total SHAM moneygrab. It reminds me of the way penny stocks are marketed. Here's a long letter and some stretch goals every few weeks... keep sending us more $ so we can maintain our lavish lifestyles...
People do realize there is this thing called the internet right?

Funny. There are those that claim CIG is running out of money with so many people working on the project. That their burn rate must be huge and that they should be closing doors anytime soon.

Then there are those that claim they have too much money. That they have enough to support development for years and so on.

So. Is there enough money or not?
Re: Deus Ex Mankind Divided Patch Adds DX12
Sep 8, 2016, 12:13
Re: Deus Ex Mankind Divided Patch Adds DX12 Sep 8, 2016, 12:13
Sep 8, 2016, 12:13
I don't get it. No SLI support yet?

I don't know if there are more users that will take advantage of DX 12 or not. I imagine so. But adding SLI support is not rocket science and there are even programs that allow you to add non official SLI support to a game.

Couldn't they waste a bit of dev time to add support for it?

Come on. Having SLI and not being able to take advantage of it sucks.
Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Next Year?
Sep 5, 2016, 14:52
Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Next Year? Sep 5, 2016, 14:52
Sep 5, 2016, 14:52
dsmart wrote on Sep 5, 2016, 09:40:
I just came here to see who else thinks this is my fault.

ps: I called it almost a year ago. You're welcome.

What did you actually called?

You have fired in all directions and so far you have failed to do anything of what you claimed you would do.
Where is that lawsuit you promised?

You said you had credible information that they were going to run out of money by January 2016. That didn't happen.
You said they were firing people, downsizing as they were running out of money but instead the company has hired more people.
You claimed they would never have procedural generation. Now they have.
64bit engine? Yep. FPS combat. Available in the alpha as well. Seamless transition. They have it.

Let me put it simple Derek.
When you first started to make accusations regarding CIG and SC I was actually one of those people paying attention to what you were saying.
You claimed you had proof of CIG wrong doing. That you were preparing to take them to court.
You made all sorts of accusations. But it was just that. You didn't take the next step and never will.
The worst in all this is that many of the things you claimed that they wouldn't be able to achieve, they have.

The procedural generated planets is a good example.
You have often claimed that CIG would not be able to do it.

Well, they have it running in engine now.

Right now, you are actually undermining the position of those critical of the project progress because it is impossible to have a dialogue with a fundamentalist.
From your point of view your truth is the only truth. And whenever your arguments fail, you adapt them to provide further criticism.

Look. CIG needs to be accountable. Needs to show progress and tangible evidence that they are progressing to a final game.
And the delays can't go on forever. So obviously we need cool headed people that can champion the skeptic position.
But right now, you are actually undermining that effort.

I know that you will not stop. Because you share the same problem many of us do.
You just can't hit the pause button.

Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Next Year?
Sep 4, 2016, 15:40
Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Next Year? Sep 4, 2016, 15:40
Sep 4, 2016, 15:40
I think they should just be upfront and give realistic dates instead of optimistic ones.

They are just trying to get more time and everyone knows it.

Sure. The Gamescom demo was impressive and most can see the potential on what they are trying to accomplish with Star Citizen.

Still, people want a finished game. And obviously expected SQ42 sooner rather then more delays.

This delay was expected but having to announce it so late could be avoided.
People know Sq42 isn't going to be released this year because if they were ready to release it this year, they would have been able to show more polished demos earlier.

It is easy to predict what is going to happen next.
In the next Citizencon dated for the 9th of October, they are going to show an impressive, probably very polished SQ42 demo.

By the end of the presentation people will be convinced that they are on the right track. No matter if they announce the SQ42 release delay today, tomorrow, before Citizencon or during it, the Citizencon presentation will convince most people to just wait and see.

But patience will eventually run out.

Re: No Man Sky Patch & Plans
Aug 8, 2016, 14:10
Re: No Man Sky Patch & Plans Aug 8, 2016, 14:10
Aug 8, 2016, 14:10
Flo wrote on Aug 8, 2016, 13:37:
I am interested in the story paths they mentioned and if those could keep me going. I am usually easily bored by "work-games" (often games where you have to mine stuff)

Yeah. Same here. I usually need some kind of end goal. From what I've seen they know this. The motivation to reach the center of the universe is good enough. And this game is the one that comes closer to my Star Trek exploration dreams. I love how they turned contacting new species into a language learning mini game where you need to explore, trade and so on to learn new words from a particular species.

Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
Jun 20, 2016, 19:01
Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 20, 2016, 19:01
Jun 20, 2016, 19:01
Drive to convince you? Security blanket?
Important to me?
No grounds to doubt this project?

When did I ever said there were no grounds to doubt this project?

I'm not trying to convince anyone. But you sure have your mind set that the project will fail for whatever reason.

You know what is the difference between you and me?
I don't create drama. I just look at the facts and numbers.

I don't think Chris is a genius. Don't claim I said something that I didn't.
But is this about Chris or Star Citizen?

You want to attack the person or the company policies? Go ahead.

But so far I have only seen speculation, some personal attacks and doubts they can achieve the goal.

You're emphasizing the negative and not seeing any of the positive

I'm on the other hand am neutral. If you haven't understood that yet than it is your problem.
I see the risks of a project like this. How feature creep could kill it and so on.
I've mentioned this in previous posts but it seems that you haven't noticed that part of my posts.

You see, you believe that I'm defending CIG or Chris or whatever simply because I gave examples of other AAA games with similar budgets and scope, that started development at about the same time as SC and will still take some time to be released.
Or how great developers have had their ups and downs and sometimes succeeded and sometimes they didn't.

This is not a defense. This is just reality.

Understand this and perhaps you might learn something.
It's easy to pass judgment but hard to judge fairly.

As in typical gossip magazine style, everyone wants to give an opinion about the most crowdfunded game of all times.

When someone simply points out another project like Mass Effect that started development at aout the same time and that we have only seen a couple of trailers, that information is dismissed.

Instead people prefer to judge the project based on their opinion of a person or certain business decisions.

As if only that factor will determine the success or failure of the project.

Your post Slashman just shows the problem.
You talk about TOS changes that you are right to be upset about.
But what does that have to do with CIG being able to create the game or not?

I don't know if they can. I have no reason to believe either of that. Same goes for many other AAA games in production.

I just wait and see.
I don't judge or anything. Star Citizen trailers look good. Their ideas for the game seem nice. They have the money. The team and so on.

And that is it. Same goes for other games I'm looking forward to and by the way. That I'm actually more interested in than SC.

If you don't understand this neutral , wait and see mindset than perhaps you're the one with the obsessive behavior.

Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
Jun 19, 2016, 12:03
Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 19, 2016, 12:03
Jun 19, 2016, 12:03
If I understand correctly most of the people that believe the project will fail is because of Chris Roberts.

A 300+ project with several managers dealing with different parts of the game development and you guys think Chris is doing everything?

Some of you mention Rob Irving and point to interviews he did to support your opinion on why you believe the game will fail. I've watched these interviews and I only see a great developer stating that he joined the project because he loved the idea but left because it became a big 300+ people production. Same goes for Eric Peterson.
It's the difference between typical smaller budged Indie development vs big budget AAA development. And many devs these days prefer smaller projects because they indeed let you be more creative working with smaller teams.

That's what devs like Ken Levine did as well as many other devs in the industry that were tired of working in exaustive AAA games.

Anyway. Let's suppose your right. That Chris has doomed the project and so on. And no one else his helping him keep the ship afloat.

First of all. Why is it that Chris Roberts is such a well know developer?

The answer is simple. He was extremely successful at the time.

Taken from Wikipedia:

He developed about 10 games during his career.
Times of Lore, Bad Blood, Wing Commander 1, Wing Commaner 2 (as produccer), Strike Commander, Privateer, Wing Commander 3 and Wing Commander IV, Starlancer and Freelancer.

All of them were successful and only 1 of them he failed to deliver(Freelancer).

Still the game was not cancelled. Most of the game development was done during Chris Roberts time on the project. But Microsoft instead of canceling decided to release it with a smaller scope.
As was stated back in the day. The issue was not that the game was in a development mess. The issue was not that it wasn't a good game.
The issue was that they couldn't deliver everything on time with the scope they wanted.
Still the game has a Metacritic of 85% and 8.9 user score.

And this is the problem of your opinion.
Your argument is based on one single game that Chris Roberts was unable to deliver on a timely cost efficient matter.
What about the other 9 games?
And what about the fact that all his games (Freelancer included) were a success?

If your argument is that the game will fail because of Chris Roberts and his ambition, fact still is that he only screwed up in one game out of 10. He reached complete success in 9 out of 10 games.

I think people are just jumping into conclusions way too soon.
jdreyer made a good post where he gives a valid argument.

SC Alpha only has 2 systems and we haven't seen all these 100 systems coming together yet.
I have no idea how much development has progressed behind closed doors.
Perhaps they will push the game to 2018. Perhaps they are running out of money and so on and on.

But that is the thing.
I don't know how much EA has done with Mass Effect Andromeda either. Or so many upcoming games that we have seen small demos or trailers and started development at about the same time as SC.
I'm just taking the cautious approach. Giving them the same benefit of a doubt as I give other developers that have taken 5+ years to build their high budget AAA games.
I waited 5 years for GTA V and loved the result. I waited 4 years for The Witcher 3 and loved the result. I did hate AC Unity result

If I don't complain about EA delaying Mass Effect to 2017, a game that started development in late 2012 and that we have only seen a few minutes of footage why complain about SC?

We all heard about SC just when it was just a concept. We saw a new company being built from scratch to create this game.
This is a process few in the public have ever followed so closely before.
IF SC was being built by EA we would probably only have seen some teaser last year and perhaps a trailer this year at E3 as they would have never shown anything in the first couple of years of game development.
How do I know this? That's what they are doing with Mass Effect. That started development in 2012. One teaser last year and a small trailer this year.

It is hard to understand why some of you are so ready to consider SC a failure taking into count that :

- There are 300+ devs working on the title much like many other AAA titles
- They have been developing the game for the last 3 and a half years and most of these more complex AAA titles can take 4-5 years to build
- Even if Chris Roberts will doom the project and is the source of all your criticism, fact still is that he has succeed in 9 out of 10 projects before.
- Chris may be a newbie in game development, but they do have some really talented people working on this.
- Rob Irvin left CIF for whatever reason. But if SC development is going so bad why are there 300+ people working on the project and some of them top devs that could get a job elsewhere?

Aren't some of you jumping into conclusions way too early?

Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
Jun 17, 2016, 15:58
Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 17, 2016, 15:58
Jun 17, 2016, 15:58
Quote from the article:

This however, is not your typical single-player fighter-only game of the ’90s. Players can buy multiple ships, customize them, capture and control mid-sized capital ships with the help of other players, lead boarding parties with first-person shooter gameplay, loot, trade, explore, name trade routes, etc.

As I read your post it doesn't really matter anything anyone will argue.
As I mentioned in previous post and will mention again.
I don't see them doing anything out of the ordinary and gave plenty of examples of top of the tops devs that have faced all kinds of issues.

You consider that SC will fail based on your opinion of Chris Roberts more than anything else. They have 300 people working on the title and obviously different people managing different parts of the game. But it doesn't matter. You have already decided they will fail.

You make some point about promised features that they haven't talked about much. In all honesty I'm sure some features will be changed or not included just like it happens in most game development.
But from one or other feature not making it into to final game to not delivering the core promise is another thing.

But anyway. Your entire opinion is based on your distrust of Chris Roberts and the promises they made.

But could you please just answer the following question?

Is CIG any different from other devs be it following the traditional funding model or crowdfunding and if so what makes them different?

Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
Jun 16, 2016, 18:07
Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 16, 2016, 18:07
Jun 16, 2016, 18:07
I would just like to reiterate that in no way I'm defending CIG.

My opinion is simply that I don't see them doing anything out of the ordinary when compared to other developers/publishers and crowdfunded projects.

To better understand that we are all on the same page.
You know Peter Molyneux and how it was criticized not that long ago for failing to deliver?
The same might just happen with CIG.
The only difference (for now), is that unlike Peter Molyneux that downsized the dev team and gave indications that it would move to other projects, CIG is still actively growing and developing the game.

CIG might collapse. But you know what? Same can happen with so many developers. Ubisoft took the hit due to AC Unity poor state for instance.

Thus why I simply point out that if we give a fair chance to other developers that have only shown 5 minute trailers for games they've been developing over the last 5 years, than given that CIG is doing the exact same thing, they too should be given a fair chance as well.

With that said.
In reply to Kosumo points :

What other crowd funded project continue to sell stuff through out the whole development time?

A lot of them if not most. The more popular they are the most likely they'll try to get additional funds due to momentum. (just like Star Citizen)
Just to name a few :
Tormet Tides of Numeria - Has different pledge tiers as well as accepts any ammount people want to pledge
Kingdom Come Deliverance - Different pledge levels.
Elite Dangerous - Continued to accept pledges up until its release.
The popular Shemenue 3 - - Pledging up to $8000. - Pledge up to $12000
Bard's Tale IV - - Up to $10000 tier or any custom ammount people want to pledge.

I could go on and on as there are plenty of examples.

Can you direct me to where on their site I can donate $17.50 or $111 or $69.69 or any other number that is not the amount which they sell a internet spaceship for?

Sure. Just go to the pledge store.
You got plenty of options such as this : .
No rewards in that one. Just to give them support. If you want to give them $12, or $24 just add more items.
Or if you want SC or SQ42 go for the normal packages with the same price as the typical pre-order.

How do you know that it is only wealthy people, chances are that there are many people who are not wealth who have brought these ships becase of the way CIG insentivised them i.e. Limited time, Life time insurance, ect.
If wealthy people wish to donate more they could have just multiply copies of a $30 ship.

Taking into count that the average Joe doesn't win much more than $35000 a year (just checked it on Google), wasting $18000 on a project like this is pretty much trowing half of your anual wage through the window.
If you can do this, good for you. You are probably earning way above the average Joe. But most people can't.
Would you waste half of your yearly wage on any project?
And yes. Wealthy people can donate just by getting multiple copies. But obviously devs try to provide some kind of reward depending on how much you are pledging. Everyone does it.

To Slashman.
I don't dispute anything that you have stated. The project may fail because of their ambition.
But they have raised millions specially to try and deliver an ambitious game.
AAA games are high risk, ambitious titles in nature.
That's why so few publishers/developers can do it.
Ever heard of Halo MMO?
Read the article on Engadget about Microsoft Halo MMO that never was.

Microsoft wasted $90 Million during the course of 3 years (2004 to 2007). Back in 2004, $90 Million was a huge investment. Surpassing the budget for top games and the at the time top MMO World Of Warcraft that cost half of that. ($40 Million)

Did you know for instance that CD Projetk Red almost went bankrupt before The Witcher 2?

Here is the deal. We often criticize certain companies for not taking more risks and repeating the same formula every year. The companies that we often praise are those that have taken bigger risks and achieved success doing so. It's the case of CD Projekt Red that quite literally invested all their money on the success of The Witcher in a highly competitive landscape and trying to surpass companies with years of experience.

But let's face it. For each company that succeeds there are 10 other than fail. So as you can see I completely understand where you are going.
This is the nature of the AAA game development beast.
And there is nothing better than checking the following article to see just how bad things are :

You end your post with the following frase :

They should have shut the fuck up about building an FPS/space sim/MMO that no one has ever done before and delivered what could have been readily and easily delivered.

Sorry but I don't understand. Deliver a game other than what they have initially promised? Doing a FPS/space sim/MMO was the entire point of the campaign from the start. Check the following article from November 2012 :

Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
Jun 16, 2016, 04:33
Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 16, 2016, 04:33
Jun 16, 2016, 04:33
Regarding the two comments bellow I'll just point out the following:

First check the article bellow on How The Witcher changed completely from how they were initially developing it

A change like the above is obviously something not possible to do in Kickstarter projects. But still most kickstarter projects suffer changes, adding more features or removing them while keeping the core promise intact.

Has for the insane amount of money to get the completionist package.
In any project you donate/invest the amount you want to donate/invest.
On Kickstarter any project allows you to pledge any amount of money you want.
Oculus Rift for instance had a pledge option that started at $5000.

There are insanely rich people in the world that have no issues pledging that amount or even more on projects with an unlikely positive outcome.

If I had the money would I do it? No way. Rather donate it to charity or projects with a bigger impact on humanity. Perhaps a project to send a satellite to a distant planet or whatever.
Well but what do I know? If I had millions I could perhaps do it all. $5000 on this one. $100.000 on that one.

Point is it is not up to me to judge in what people decide to waste their money on.
But above all the message is CIG is no different than any other crowd funding project because most projects on Kickstarter accept any ammount of money you're willing to give them.
So you could see things in another perspective.
CIG realized that there were extremely wealthy people wasting thousands of dollars on different options. So to provide these wealthy people an easier option and an inceptive, they created that pledge option.

If you disagree with their funding method than your issue is not with CIG but with the funding method.
Perhaps you believe that this funding methods should be prohibited or limited.

But that has little to do with CIG or any one resorting to crowd funding to raise money for their project.

Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
Jun 15, 2016, 20:14
Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 15, 2016, 20:14
Jun 15, 2016, 20:14
Don't quite get where I was wrong.
Just like any developer they tried to get investors to support their project. And they got it.
How is that different from any other production? You do know that many projects publishers invest on end up cancelled or simply fail to be profitable?

Most of your post is about Chris.
Are we talking about Chris or CIG?

You disagree how CIG is handling the project? Then don't support it. Don't give them money.
You supported the project back when it was announced and disagree with how it is progressing? Well that is the thing in this kind of donations/investments.
They have a studio working on the project. So your options are limited.

They have hired a lot of people. Built a company and all that.
Imagine that you are a developer house and you got money from family, publishers and so on. With it you rented an office, hired people and so on. And during production of your game an investor approaches you and asks for his money back.
Your answer would probably be that you wouldn't be able to return it as it is being used to build the product.
Consider that instead of a game a company is building you a house. You have hired their services and promised them that they would get the first payment at the end of the month.
So the company buys the materials, hires some people and so on. In the end of the month you tell them that you have no money and you want to cancel the construction. How do you think that would go?

It's a similar issue here.
Regarding CIG, if you want your money back, then really. Internet forums aren't going to help you.

Either way, this is no different than what happens in the production of other games.
GTA V took almost 6 years to make. The release date was delayed multiple times meaning that the developer asked the publisher for more time to finish the game.
TAKE-Two gave Rockstar that time.
You aren't giving CIG that option.

Who is the most reasonable?

You see the difference here is that simply you have decided to take an emotional approach to this.
I've simply pointed out to you that in practice CIG acts much like any other dev studio.

But your response instead is more related to a person than a company.

Look at the following article just to get a picture of how things actually are in a developer house and how they can change.

You may have enjoyed games like GTA V or Witcher 3. But you just saw the final product. You didn't have a look at the internal issues. The controversy and all that .
You just saw the result.

As much as you may dislike Chris and so on, the game isn't being built by one guy. And even if he calls all the shots and is some maniac, the result may end up being a great game. Or a great failure. Who knows?

Forget about Chris for a minute.
Give CIG the same treatment you give other companies that you have even less insight of what happens behind their doors.

If the game gets cancelled for whatever reason we can then come here and talk about the disaster.
If it gets released we'll judge it for what it is.

After all, this is what we did with other games right?

If you don't agree with me fine.
But in all honestly I simply can't understand why given how game development companies work, your treating this particular company differently?

Aren't they building the game after all?
104 Comments. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older