Whistleblowers usually stay anonymous especially if they still work there or even if they have left or were fired they wouldn't want it out incase it affected them getting another job, but it doesn't mean it's not try because they are anonymous. lol
Thank you Mylady Obvious for that explanation.
Now please ...
some proof !
Have fun
I haven't posted about the article i have posted how i see it you can go and look at my post history if you like, but if you want to believe a guy who talks to you through a video then go a head but i will not.
And no, anonymous sources / unnamed (possibly fired, angry) ex-employees is not proof.
And no, a private company not on the stock market is NOT required to open their books, especially not when a competitor demands it.
Have fun
Whistleblowers usually stay anonymous especially if they still work there or even if they have left or were fired they wouldn't want it out incase it affected them getting another job, but it doesn't mean it's not true because they are anonymous. lol
To be fair it also doesn't mean it is true. we're still in something of a limbo lambda atm. There is plenty of smoke, raised eyebrows and hmms going on atm but atm we KNOW very little
Whistleblowers usually stay anonymous especially if they still work there or even if they have left or were fired they wouldn't want it out incase it affected them getting another job, but it doesn't mean it's not try because they are anonymous. lol
Thank you Mylady Obvious for that explanation.
Now please ...
some proof !
Have fun
I haven't posted about the article i have posted how i see it you can go and look at my post history if you like, but if you want to believe a guy who talks to you through a video then go a head but i will not.
oh I think I made the same mistake as well sorry...bed time.
And no, anonymous sources / unnamed (possibly fired, angry) ex-employees is not proof.
And no, a private company not on the stock market is NOT required to open their books, especially not when a competitor demands it.
Have fun
Whistleblowers usually stay anonymous especially if they still work there or even if they have left or were fired they wouldn't want it out incase it affected them getting another job, but it doesn't mean it's not true because they are anonymous. lol
To be fair it also doesn't mean it is true. we're still in something of a limbo lambda atm. There is plenty of smoke, raised eyebrows and hmms going on atm but atm we KNOW very little
I agree, in that I do not doubt that crowd-funding will be bought under existing legal frameworks, or exclusively legislated.
The problem will be- How far will it be taken? Too far ? probably? Our fault? Yup....
History is going to be made here and whatever happens will set a precedence for the very long term future.
Deleted some of the above.
Your first sentence, I agree entirely. I would hope that common sense would prevail and limited protection would be introduced for crowd-funders. I imagine that an existing Act (say The Consumer Protection Act in the UK) would receive an amendment to include crowd-funding, which would be a shame and kill crowd-funding outright.
Yeah but we both know once the government has its hooks in this they will (probably) go balls to the wall.
regardless of whatever spin Erillion tries to hit you with Shits really fucked up here- To the tune of 90+ million. This isnt just going to be a small deal. This is going to be the Enron of gaming. This will be one of the biggest gaming events since..ever-Concerning more pubic money than is circulating in some nations. This is huge. This is historical .
It is a probably the most prominent Kickstarter campaign I can think of. If it fails it will transition to mainstream press and then to our legislators. Will restraint be practised at this point? Unlikely. I have always argued that a legal framework should protect funders of crowd-starters, but this is not the way I would want to see it enacted.
As you say, balls to the wall will probably be the response.
I agree, in that I do not doubt that crowd-funding will be bought under existing legal frameworks, or exclusively legislated.
The problem will be- How far will it be taken? Too far ? probably? Our fault? Yup....
History is going to be made here and whatever happens will set a precedence for the very long term future.
Deleted some of the above.
Your first sentence, I agree entirely. I would hope that common sense would prevail and limited protection would be introduced for crowd-funders. I imagine that an existing Act (say The Consumer Protection Act in the UK) would receive an amendment to include crowd-funding, which would be a shame and kill crowd-funding outright.
Yeah but we both know once the government has its hooks in this they will (probably) go balls to the wall.
regardless of whatever spin Erillion tries to hit you with Shits really fucked up here- To the tune of 90+ million. This isnt just going to be a small deal. This is going to be the Enron of gaming. This will be one of the biggest gaming events since..ever-Concerning more pubic money than is circulating in some nations. This is huge. This is historical .
It is a probably the most prominent Kickstarter campaign I can think of. If it fails it will transition to mainstream press and then to our legislators. Will restraint be practised at this point? Unlikely. I have always argued that a legal framework should protect funders of crowd-starters, but this is not the way I would want to see it enacted.
As you say, balls to the wall will probably be the response.
And no, anonymous sources / unnamed (possibly fired, angry) ex-employees is not proof.
And no, a private company not on the stock market is NOT required to open their books, especially not when a competitor demands it.
Have fun
Whistleblowers usually stay anonymous especially if they still work there or even if they have left or were fired they wouldn't want it out incase it affected them getting another job, but it doesn't mean it's not true because they are anonymous. lol
To be fair it also doesn't mean it is true. we're still in something of a limbo lambda atm. There is plenty of smoke, raised eyebrows and hmms going on atm but atm we KNOW very little
I haven't even wrote about the article all the posts i have made about star citizen are my views and no one elses so i don't know why i was quoted about the article.
I was just explaining what usually happens when someone decides to blow the whistle on a company too Erillion.
The sources were not taken from Glassdoor or Derek Smart.
Now that is how you respond to allegation of improper conduct. Nail thier balls to the door with facts. More than one part in this could learn somthing here.
Amen.
Rest assured though that the legions of SC minions will try and find a way to distort the information in that link in an effort to once again "muddy up" this fiasco. They are in crisis management mode.
Rest assured, they already are. The latest ones are:
Why didn't they visit the offices before writing the piece (as if that PR junket will bear any fruit. Imagine your boss leading a journalist around your workplace. They come to your office and ask "So how do you like working here?"... "Love it! Best workplace in the world")
The spam folder part is a lie. Presumably they wanted to post the article without CR's reply for nefarious reasons (although they added his replies within an hour of the piece being published)
Lizzy interviewed the current and former employees alone.
Iselin I'm not sure the last time I disagreed with a post of yours. It's becoming uncanny.
That Escapist response cites specifics that can, if needed, be easily verified. The chance that such a website is making up so much specific BS seems very, very miniscule to me.
Compare that to CR's response to the original article, devoid of independently verifiable facts.. The onus is squarely back on CR and CIG to prove without a doubt that all of the claims made by those anonymous ex-employees are patently false. Again, anyone who is lying (and is conscious of the lie) would be incredibly dumb to use such specific information as has Escapist. Which swings me towards the "something's amiss with CIG" camp at the moment.
If you disagreed with me, I didn't notice it I think we're in agreement.
I was just pointing out the new round of "yeah but's" that the SC fans came up with after The Escapist posted their detailed explanation of their vetting process for the sources. It's happening mostly in reddit and The Escapist's forums discussion about the article, both of which I've been keeping an eye on.
I too smell a rat at CIG.
No I was being quite sincere- I can't remember a post of your I've read lately that I didn't agree with in the utmost. That's what's so uncanny.
I haven't even wrote about the article all the posts i have made about star citizen are my views and no one elses so i don't know why i was quoted about the article.
I am not talking about any article.
You ... as in "YOU" ....made a statement:
"are low on funds.
2. They are low on money"
You must have (should have ?) a reason for that statement. Proof for that statement, even ? Otherwise it may have been just your own personal opinion based on ..... <<< Insert here >>>
I haven't even wrote about the article all the posts i have made about star citizen are my views and no one elses so i don't know why i was quoted about the article.
I am not talking about any article.
You ... as in "YOU" ....made a statement:
"are low on funds.
2. They are low on money"
You must have (should have ?) a reason for that statement. Proof for that statement, even ? Otherwise it may have been just your own personal opinion based on ..... <<< Insert here >>>
Please show us that proof.
Have fun
Then why would a company need to sell more ships and also the game is late for release and not even a sign of an alpha that is how i came to that conclusion and that was just one of two things why i think their could be a problem, especially with chris roberts letting this whole thing go on so long without providing any evidence so all this can end.
Then why would a company need to sell more ships and also the game is late for release and not even a sign of an alpha that is how i came to that conclusion and that was just one of two.
1) They have been doing this since 2013 and its part of their business model.
2) Reasons for being late have been given in great detail in VERY long in depth monthly progress reports. In some cases (Star Marine) weekly reports.
3) Alpha testing of various modules is on-going for years already. Feature complete Alpha testing will commence once all modules have been finished. Takes about 2 min to find that fact on the official homepage. There is a (work-in-progress) timeline for module release ... and therefore on the expected start of the feature-complete-Alpha-playtesting.
I can gladly point you to the relevant information (or you use Google for a few minutes) so you may review information you seem to be not yet aware of. Then you may come to another conclusion (or not).
Have fun
PS: *** blows a kiss to Jacxolope *** I luv U 2 ....
Then why would a company need to sell more ships and also the game is late for release and not even a sign of an alpha that is how i came to that conclusion and that was just one of two.
1) They have been doing this since 2013 and its part of their business model.
2) Reasons for being late have been given in great detail in VERY long in depth monthly progress reports. In some cases (Star Marine) weekly reports.
3) Alpha testing of various modules is on-going for years already. Feature complete Alpha testing will commence once all modules have been finished. Takes about 2 min to find that fact on the official homepage. There is a (work-in-progress) timeline for module release ... and therefore on the expected start of the feature-complete-Alpha-playtesting.
I can gladly point you to the relevant information (or you use Google for a few minutes) so you may review information you seem to be not yet aware of. Then you may come to another conclusion (or not).
Have fun
I don't need to listen to a guy who talks to me through a video and believe everything he says or too what he posts on the internet that doesn't address the concerns people have been raising.
I don't need to listen to a guy who talks to me through a video and believe everything he says or too what he posts on the internet that doesn't address the concerns people have been raising.
I am not talking about any video.
You ... as in "YOU" ....made a statement:
"are low on funds.
2. They are low on money"
You
must have (should have ?) a reason for that statement. Proof for that
statement, even ? Otherwise it may have been just your own personal
opinion based on ..... <<< Insert here >>>
Then why would a company need to sell more ships and also the game is late for release and not even a sign of an alpha that is how i came to that conclusion and that was just one of two.
1) They have been doing this since 2013 and its part of their business model.
2) Reasons for being late have been given in great detail in VERY long in depth monthly progress reports. In some cases (Star Marine) weekly reports.
3) Alpha testing of various modules is on-going for years already. Feature complete Alpha testing will commence once all modules have been finished. Takes about 2 min to find that fact on the official homepage. There is a (work-in-progress) timeline for module release ... and therefore on the expected start of the feature-complete-Alpha-playtesting.
I can gladly point you to the relevant information (or you use Google for a few minutes) so you may review information you seem to be not yet aware of. Then you may come to another conclusion (or not).
Have fun
If a company achieves the funding to cover all of its stretch goals (and then some), why should it need to raise more funds via ship sales prior to the release of the game? There are only two reasons:
Their initial projections were woefully inadequate, and they lacked the business acumen to deliver what they promised, or;
Their projections were accurate but they mismanaged the funds due to inexperience, incompetence or impropriety.
Then why would a company need to sell more ships and also the game is late for release and not even a sign of an alpha that is how i came to that conclusion and that was just one of two.
1) They have been doing this since 2013 and its part of their business model.
2) Reasons for being late have been given in great detail in VERY long in depth monthly progress reports. In some cases (Star Marine) weekly reports.
3) Alpha testing of various modules is on-going for years already. Feature complete Alpha testing will commence once all modules have been finished. Takes about 2 min to find that fact on the official homepage. There is a (work-in-progress) timeline for module release ... and therefore on the expected start of the feature-complete-Alpha-playtesting.
I can gladly point you to the relevant information (or you use Google for a few minutes) so you may review information you seem to be not yet aware of. Then you may come to another conclusion (or not).
Have fun
I don't need to listen to a guy who talks to me through a video and believe everything he says or too what he posts on the internet that doesn't address the concerns people have been raising.
Do you think they would really admit there was a problem especially if it was a money one, no i doubt they would because who would buy more ships and put money into the game then.
Enjoy your cult but i like my freedom.
Believing everything someone tells you through a video. lol
>>> If a company achieves the funding to cover all of its stretch goals (and
then some), why should it need to raise more funds via ship sales prior
to the release of the game? >>>
Getting funds to run the servers and maintain customer support after game launch would be a valid other reason you did not mention.
>>> If a company achieves the funding to cover all of its stretch goals (and
then some), why should it need to raise more funds via ship sales prior
to the release of the game? >>>
Getting funds to run the servers and maintain customer support after game launch would be a valid other reason you did not mention.
Have fun
No, that would come under item 1, which you snipped.
No, that would come under item 1, which you snipped.
Number 1 is about game development and initial launch.
Not about running servers for the next 10 years or so.
Have fun
You want it to be, because it would suit your ridiculous argument. Do you understand any portion of obtaining funding, because it always includes the running costs over the period of development. if it did not nothing would ever get made.
Let me repeat my post:
If a company achieves the funding to cover all of its stretch goals (and then some), why should it need to raise more funds via ship sales prior to the release of the game? There are only two reasons:
Their initial projections were woefully inadequate, and they lacked the business acumen to deliver what they promised, or;
Their projections were accurate but they mismanaged the funds due to inexperience, incompetence or impropriety.
because it always includes the running costs over the period of development.
You said the magic words ... "over the period of development".
Which is over at ... *** drum roll *** game launch (or whenever all promised stretch goals have been implemented).
Anything after that date is not included. That is why its called "funds needed for development". That is why its not called "all money we will ever need til Judgement Day".
because it always includes the running costs over the period of development.
You said the magic words ... "over the period of development".
Which is over at ... *** drum roll *** game launch (or whenever all promised stretch goals have been implemented).
Anything after that date is not included. That is why its called "funds needed for development". That is why its not called "all money we will ever need til Judgement Day".
Have fun
Which is the fundamental ignorance in your post.
Please identify on here where any reference is made to "running servers for the next 10 years or so".
You post many straw men and no points worthy of debate, which makes you a waste of time.
Regardless a mismanaged production will never run servers, it will never release.
because it always includes the running costs over the period of development.
You said the magic words ... "over the period of development".
Which is over at ... *** drum roll *** game launch (or whenever all promised stretch goals have been implemented).
Anything after that date is not included. That is why its called "funds needed for development". That is why its not called "all money we will ever need til Judgement Day".
Have fun
Which is the fundamental ignorance in your post.
Please identify on here where any reference is made to "running servers for the next 10 years or so".
You post many straw men and no points worthy of debate, which makes you a waste of time.
Have fun.
They believe everything that someone tells them through a video what do you expect.
>> Please identify on here where any reference is made to "running servers for the next 10 years or so". >>
We ARE talking about why they continue to raise funds. After stretch goal additions have stopped about a year ago. So providing a link to the stretch goals is relevant ... why ?
You asked for reasons. I gave you a reason. To keep servers and customer support running once the initial development period is over.
I am not sure about you, but i prefer my game servers to be powered by something else than hamsters and tears of haters.
Comments
To be fair it also doesn't mean it is true. we're still in something of a limbo lambda atm. There is plenty of smoke, raised eyebrows and hmms going on atm but atm we KNOW very little
oh I think I made the same mistake as well sorry...bed time.
As you say, balls to the wall will probably be the response.
I was just explaining what usually happens when someone decides to blow the whistle on a company too Erillion.
I am not talking about any article.
You ... as in "YOU" ....made a statement:
"are low on funds.
2. They are low on money"
You must have (should have ?) a reason for that statement. Proof for that statement, even ? Otherwise it may have been just your own personal opinion based on ..... <<< Insert here >>>
Please show us that proof.
Have fun
PS:
Ahh, i see you edited your post.
(I'll gladly take the mod edit/warning to call that fucker a bitch)
2) Reasons for being late have been given in great detail in VERY long in depth monthly progress reports. In some cases (Star Marine) weekly reports.
3) Alpha testing of various modules is on-going for years already. Feature complete Alpha testing will commence once all modules have been finished. Takes about 2 min to find that fact on the official homepage. There is a (work-in-progress) timeline for module release ... and therefore on the expected start of the feature-complete-Alpha-playtesting.
I can gladly point you to the relevant information (or you use Google for a few minutes) so you may review information you seem to be not yet aware of. Then you may come to another conclusion (or not).
Have fun
PS:
*** blows a kiss to Jacxolope *** I luv U 2 ....
You ... as in "YOU" ....made a statement:
"are low on funds.
2. They are low on money"
You must have (should have ?) a reason for that statement.
Proof for that statement, even ?
Otherwise it may have been just your own personal opinion based on
..... <<< Insert here >>>
Please show us that proof.
Have fun
- Their initial projections were woefully inadequate, and they lacked the business acumen to deliver what they promised, or;
- Their projections were accurate but they mismanaged the funds due to inexperience, incompetence or impropriety.
Take your pick.Getting funds to run the servers and maintain customer support after game launch would be a valid other reason you did not mention.
Have fun
Not about running servers for the next 10 years or so.
Have fun
Let me repeat my post:
Which is over at ... *** drum roll *** game launch (or whenever all promised stretch goals have been implemented).
Anything after that date is not included. That is why its called "funds needed for development". That is why its not called "all money we will ever need til Judgement Day".
Have fun
Please identify on here where any reference is made to "running servers for the next 10 years or so".
You post many straw men and no points worthy of debate, which makes you a waste of time.
Regardless a mismanaged production will never run servers, it will never release.
Have fun.
We ARE talking about why they continue to raise funds. After stretch goal additions have stopped about a year ago. So providing a link to the stretch goals is relevant ... why ?
You asked for reasons. I gave you a reason. To keep servers and customer support running once the initial development period is over.
I am not sure about you, but i prefer my game servers to be powered by something else than hamsters and tears of haters.
Have fun
EcHO
ECho
ECHO
echo
cho
ho
o
.
Have fun