Kxmode wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 22:35:
How do you explain the time and backer money used to go after The Escapist for producing a well-receiving and researched editorial that provided an eye-opening insight into CIG's inner workings?
If I could posit an educated guess, since obviously no one can actually confirm your assertion, he (CR) very likely used his own money and his own lawyer to handle that situation.
Kxmode wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 22:35:
The point, don't bring that rosy-eyed, horse excrement to this site. It won't work here. Except for a small few, most of us see Star Citizen as a long-con. That won't change until Chris ships his game, and we see what his madness has wrought.
As long as you're up front that it's your opinion that its a con and you're not simply asserting that it is, I have no issue with it. You're fully welcome, in my opinion, to be wrong. I can bring the light of good sense and logic wherever I please, tyvm!
IF and only if actual, concrete evidence of wrongdoing and a total flight from development and closure of their offices occurs and it becomes self evident that the project will not be completed then I will first want to examine the final reasons as to why such was decided and THEN will I make my own decision on if I felt the whole thing ended up being a massive con instead of just a failure. I'm ok with failure but obviously a scam or con would not be acceptable.
I get how everything that's happened can so easily prompt those who love the sensationalism of it to jump to the conclusions they do. It's fun to get mad when you have a mob, even a small one, to support your "anger" or whatever this is. Why don't I see what the rest of you clearly do? I guess I'm just a Vulcan or something. All the assumptions and heresay and conspiracy theories and illogical claims just hold no weight with me. I want empirical truth before I get on that boat. To me there is, and always has been, a clear lack of ill intention from CIG. They have shown me nothing at all that points to a desire to achieve anything less than what they've proposed. And by "shown me" I refer to all the weekly progress they report on. It may not always be huge from week to week but you know what? It's more than you can say for equally large projects that dive under the radar and stay there until they surface for an "open beta" and then spit their game out 3 weeks later and it's laughed at for being a shred of what they promised. Or worse, when they come out and say its canceled after a long period of silence (EQN!)
Their only "crime" is taking longer than anyone hoped they would, despite all the logic that should have informed them otherwise and prevented such silly hopes. Like I said, the crowd funded their stretch goals. The crowd turned this into a far larger project with a far far far longer development cycle. But lets get real. Even if they'd stayed at 2mil and kept the scope at just a new SP game with online co-op, or whatever the original pitch was, 2 years was still insanely optimistic and dumb of them to assert. Even in 2012 they probably didn't have the manpower or the right producer(s) to get that job done so quickly. To make a point, let's look at the Battletech kickstarter. That was funded in September of 2015 for a pre-established development team. They are now over 1.5 years into development of a vastly smaller game in terms of scope and even they are facing "delays" with a new target release of late summer to early fall. It's only a "delay" (air quotes) because they were forced to offer a release estimate. The point this makes is there simply is no cookie cutter that says how long game development should take. No two projects are alike and no two projects will go through the same iteration before the developers get it right. The only right length of time is however long it takes when and if it comes out and was done right the first time. You will never point to a great game and say "Damn this game is great but it just took way too long to make." But how quickly will we point to a shitty game and say they should have worked on it a few more years? Duh.