Does Star Citizen REALLY exist?

Kunai_Vax

gervaise1 said:

rodarin said:

But yeah if you mix in a calculator and go by what Roberts has claimed and that they need 3 mil a month to keep up a steady pace thats 36 mil a year and at 140 mil thats basically 4 years.  So its not hard to think they have spent all their money already on salaries. Again we can debate the numbers of employees all we want but even if they go up and down the wiggle room isnt that huge. Not when you start adding up all the other shit they have spent money on.
<snip>

Say you decide to build your own house.

You hire an architect say and spend a year sorting out the plans.
Then lets say you need another 6 months whilst the plans are reviewed by regulatory bodies.
Then you hit the go button and the builders and all the contractors come in for 6 months say.
Lets say you are spending $50k a month during the build phase. And at this point in time you let friends know that you are spending $50k a month.

Exam question: will you need a) $300k b) c. $330k c) c. $1.2M

Calculators are allowed.

Well if you are CR then half way through the building process you'll decide you want space doors, not regular doors, so the builders will be sat around doing nothing for a few months while the architects re-design everything to accommodate the new addition. Then lets say another 6 months while the plans are reviewed by regulatory bodies. 6 months is a long time to wait for aproval.. by then CR doesnt like where the space doors are located and thinks they would be better suited on the west wall rather than the east wall, so back to the architects.. 

I think we need an option (d.) 

gervaise1

Kunai_Vax said:

gervaise1 said:

rodarin said:

But yeah if you mix in a calculator and go by what Roberts has claimed and that they need 3 mil a month to keep up a steady pace thats 36 mil a year and at 140 mil thats basically 4 years.  So its not hard to think they have spent all their money already on salaries. Again we can debate the numbers of employees all we want but even if they go up and down the wiggle room isnt that huge. Not when you start adding up all the other shit they have spent money on.
<snip>

Say you decide to build your own house.

You hire an architect say and spend a year sorting out the plans.
Then lets say you need another 6 months whilst the plans are reviewed by regulatory bodies.
Then you hit the go button and the builders and all the contractors come in for 6 months say.
Lets say you are spending $50k a month during the build phase. And at this point in time you let friends know that you are spending $50k a month.

Exam question: will you need a) $300k b) c. $330k c) c. $1.2M

Calculators are allowed.

Well if you are CR then half way through the building process you'll decide you want space doors, not regular doors, so the builders will be sat around doing nothing for a few months while the architects re-design everything to accommodate the new addition. Then lets say another 6 months while the plans are reviewed by regulatory bodies. 6 months is a long time to wait for aproval.. by then CR doesnt like where the space doors are located and thinks they would be better suited on the west wall rather than the east wall, so back to the architects.. 

I think we need an option (d.) 

That would be d) $480k then.

gervaise1

Kunai_Vax said:

I like how they are tying lore in with death mechanics   
Its very creative.

You like Crowfall?
Maybe I should start posting lots of "alternative facts" (also known as falsehoods) about the game?

As it is I hope Crowfall does well. I don't adopt the view that only games that I like are worth developing and I need to work hard to diminish and belittle any game that I don't like. 

Kunai_Vax

gervaise1 said:

Kunai_Vax said:

I like how they are tying lore in with death mechanics   
Its very creative.

You like Crowfall?
Maybe I should start posting lots of "alternative facts" (also known as falsehoods) about the game?

As it is I hope Crowfall does well. I don't adopt the view that only games that I like are worth developing and I need to work hard to diminish and belittle any game that I don't like. 

Well actually if you care to look back at my post history you'll see i dont actually like Crowfall and have said more than once that while i used to be a backer and a fan, i was turned off by certain development choices and have no interest in playing this game. As it is, i hope Crowfall does well. I dont adopt the view that only games that i like are worth developing. 
I'll also add that SC is a game i might be interested in (if its ever released) but my interest in this game doesn't prevent me from making critical or satirical comments. 

Kunai_Vax

@gervaise1

http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/comment/7108462/#Comment_7108462

Dont worry, you dont have to scroll far, im the first poster on the thread 

Kajidourden

Star citizen will be lucky to make it to release.  Though they did raise a fuckton of money so I guess they have the time to sit on it. 

DKLond

lukez said:

What are your evidence? So far noone here has given any evidence just their opinions

And in an intelligent discussion people try to widen their horizon not shouting opposing ideas at each other i think you're confusing something here...

I contributed probably as much as anyone else here which is 0... i'm not trying to impress anyone or change anyones mind or try to shout the loudest because we all know the loudest is the most right...
I just gave a commentary about the current discussion witjout trying to offend anyone personally
I'm sorry that you feel personally attacked
Keep on feeling superior

You're seriously suggesting I repeat everything I've said in this and all the other threads for your benefit?

Again, you're not here to contribute - and I have no incentive to "persuade" you for any reason.

This is a public forum - and the people who're willing to have an exchange don't really need your pointless drivel.

DKLond

Kefo said:

DKLond said:

lukez said:

DKLond said:

lukez said:

i love this discussions between unmovable fanboys and unshackable haters.... so open minded on both sides.... humanity at it's best.... both sides are convinced they're the only ones that can be right since they're much smarter than the other side and have to teach them

Of course, no fan or hater can reach the perfect balance of the neutral observer who has zero arguments or tangible insight

arguments should be based on evidence of which we have absolutely 0 we have a lot of opinions... 

we're all just observers either being for or against it we have no access to evidence or insight just our perception of what is the truth

I think you're confusing the concept of evidence with proof. We have no proof.

Strictly speaking, no one in the world has (objective) proof of anything - because objective truth is but a theory that has yet to be conclusively established.

But we have lots and lots of evidence.

Well, I do - and I guess you don't.

I'm using this evidence to support my case - and that's what happens when people exchange opinions. Well, that's what's supposed to happen if anything is to come of it.

By being an observer without evidence - you're not contributing anything of value. Beyond that, you also elect to pass judgment on that of which you have limited understanding.

As such, you're not being very impressive.

Really? No one in the world has objective proof of anything? You might want to brush up on what you're talking about before you start trying to insult others cause you are just holding up a big neon sign yourself.

Do you understand that objective truth can't be established - at least so far?

You seem to be confused about these terms. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to brush up on them

kikoodutroa8

Wow the wait for Squadon42 is literally driving people mad here! O:

rodarin

CrazKanuk said:

rodarin said:

Bwaaahaahaaa I almost read that until you cited Wikipedia as a source and I just stopped. Really?

The FACTS are there are games out there you can play right now. Many made in less time and with less money than SC has had access to.

There are even MULTIPLE space games with a lot of things SC has claimed they will have. The semantics on whether some of them are MMO or not can be debated but the way the SC 'universe' will work if it ever gets made people can debate SC as an MMO as well.

You know what would end this loop? Them actually putting out stuff they have shown people for years. 3.0 is the benchmark. Everyone has said that although now the fans are backtracking a little fearing (as they should) that it wont be nearly as expansive as they thought or was proclaimed.

But I am sure something will come along before then that will take the focus off that and onto something else. Its the status quo with this project.

People should learn to expect nothing with this game except a ship sale or promotion after every presentation.

This is what I mean. You claim that SC is the most expensive game to make. I support that claim and you come back and tell me that there are many games that take less time and money to make. This is what I mean, you have a simple lack of understanding of the simplest concepts, like when someone is agreeing with you. How can anyone expect you to understand something as complex as developing a video game, or how stoplights work? 

Instead, you retreat to the status quo of the "ship sale" argument. Other than that, I'm pretty sure that everything above, I covered and was mostly in agreement with you, with the exception that all crowdfunding is a scam and that they should be able to produce something on a similar timeline as other projects (like life is feudal) because they are in the same genre. It would be nice if that's the way it worked, but it isn't. That being said, Life is Feudal has been in works since 2010, just FYI, so it's sort of self-defeating to use them as an example of an upstanding project with a quick development cycle, considering they are 7 years in and they are in beta..... Just sayin. 

As I said I stopped reading after you cited wiki. So I dont know what you said after that. I certainly wouldnt cite wiki to make a point for me so if youre citing it to agree with me thats your prerogative. But I wouldnt do it myself.

I can cite what they say in their official declarations. And even those are also obviously biased they also show a pattern of changes and unclear direction along with stuff that just has never happened that they claim would happen.

Either way this is still the same stupid crap we have been hashing over for the past 3 years.

People will spin their arguments based on their view. But until the game is released (not the project it is now) with an ACTUAL persistent game world or universe or instance or whatever, with most of the fundamental components MMOs have including but not limited to...crafting, classes, progression, economy, exploration, etc then the critics have the upper hand. When the best argument backers can make are "we make a lot of money'' or ''every game takes forever to release'' or ''I would rather have them take their time and get it right than 'rush' it''  then they dont have much ammunition in their guns to defend it. But in their minds the longer it takes and the more money it (allegedly) continues to accrue the better it will be when it FINALLY releases. thats the corner the white knights have now backed themselves into. And because they are now backed into that corner we see why they lash out more and more. Because we all know the cliches said about cornered animals.

CrazKanuk

rodarin said:

CrazKanuk said:

rodarin said:

Bwaaahaahaaa I almost read that until you cited Wikipedia as a source and I just stopped. Really?

The FACTS are there are games out there you can play right now. Many made in less time and with less money than SC has had access to.

There are even MULTIPLE space games with a lot of things SC has claimed they will have. The semantics on whether some of them are MMO or not can be debated but the way the SC 'universe' will work if it ever gets made people can debate SC as an MMO as well.

You know what would end this loop? Them actually putting out stuff they have shown people for years. 3.0 is the benchmark. Everyone has said that although now the fans are backtracking a little fearing (as they should) that it wont be nearly as expansive as they thought or was proclaimed.

But I am sure something will come along before then that will take the focus off that and onto something else. Its the status quo with this project.

People should learn to expect nothing with this game except a ship sale or promotion after every presentation.

This is what I mean. You claim that SC is the most expensive game to make. I support that claim and you come back and tell me that there are many games that take less time and money to make. This is what I mean, you have a simple lack of understanding of the simplest concepts, like when someone is agreeing with you. How can anyone expect you to understand something as complex as developing a video game, or how stoplights work? 

Instead, you retreat to the status quo of the "ship sale" argument. Other than that, I'm pretty sure that everything above, I covered and was mostly in agreement with you, with the exception that all crowdfunding is a scam and that they should be able to produce something on a similar timeline as other projects (like life is feudal) because they are in the same genre. It would be nice if that's the way it worked, but it isn't. That being said, Life is Feudal has been in works since 2010, just FYI, so it's sort of self-defeating to use them as an example of an upstanding project with a quick development cycle, considering they are 7 years in and they are in beta..... Just sayin. 

As I said I stopped reading after you cited wiki. So I dont know what you said after that. I certainly wouldnt cite wiki to make a point for me so if youre citing it to agree with me thats your prerogative. But I wouldnt do it myself.

I can cite what they say in their official declarations. And even those are also obviously biased they also show a pattern of changes and unclear direction along with stuff that just has never happened that they claim would happen.

Either way this is still the same stupid crap we have been hashing over for the past 3 years.

People will spin their arguments based on their view. But until the game is released (not the project it is now) with an ACTUAL persistent game world or universe or instance or whatever, with most of the fundamental components MMOs have including but not limited to...crafting, classes, progression, economy, exploration, etc then the critics have the upper hand. When the best argument backers can make are "we make a lot of money'' or ''every game takes forever to release'' or ''I would rather have them take their time and get it right than 'rush' it''  then they dont have much ammunition in their guns to defend it. But in their minds the longer it takes and the more money it (allegedly) continues to accrue the better it will be when it FINALLY releases. thats the corner the white knights have now backed themselves into. And because they are now backed into that corner we see why they lash out more and more. Because we all know the cliches said about cornered animals.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd say you're entirely wrong. Thanks for re-hashing a dying thread, though. 

So called "white knights" may make statements similar to what you say, but the opposite end of the spectrum *focused on you* will make wildly inaccurate statements like things "don't exist" despite there being considerable gameplay footage readily available through this site called "Google". Also, dismissing Wikipedia as an invalid resource is fucking hilarious considering the sources that get thrown around as, what? Experts? It's like exchanging one bias for another, but you feel free to believe what fits within your agenda....as per always. I'm sorry, but your posts seem to become more and more absurd the deeper in the thread that you are. They're filled with assumptions, misguided ideas, and zero practical evidence to support your opinion. But, yeah, Wikipedia is the problem, lol.

I'm sorry, but staunch critics, such as yourself, do not have the upper hand. In fact, you look more and more foolish and less and less objective as time goes on and you continue to ignore new information and, instead, rely on the same old arguments, despite the fact that there is much more up-to-date information available. 

It's good, though, because it actually illustrates WHO the real extremists are. A year and a half ago there could have been a dozen people you could label as such, but since that time those same people have progressed towards a more neutral point, accepting that with what is now available the outlook has changed. Some others, not so much *pointing at you* If nothing else, your posts provide some comic relief. My guess is that it won't matter when it releases, you'll still be talking about how it isn't released even after it has been officially released. There will always be willow branches to grasp at and make yourself seem relevant. That goes for any topic, though. 

Kefo

DKLond said:

Kefo said:

DKLond said:

lukez said:

DKLond said:

lukez said:

i love this discussions between unmovable fanboys and unshackable haters.... so open minded on both sides.... humanity at it's best.... both sides are convinced they're the only ones that can be right since they're much smarter than the other side and have to teach them

Of course, no fan or hater can reach the perfect balance of the neutral observer who has zero arguments or tangible insight

arguments should be based on evidence of which we have absolutely 0 we have a lot of opinions... 

we're all just observers either being for or against it we have no access to evidence or insight just our perception of what is the truth

I think you're confusing the concept of evidence with proof. We have no proof.

Strictly speaking, no one in the world has (objective) proof of anything - because objective truth is but a theory that has yet to be conclusively established.

But we have lots and lots of evidence.

Well, I do - and I guess you don't.

I'm using this evidence to support my case - and that's what happens when people exchange opinions. Well, that's what's supposed to happen if anything is to come of it.

By being an observer without evidence - you're not contributing anything of value. Beyond that, you also elect to pass judgment on that of which you have limited understanding.

As such, you're not being very impressive.

Really? No one in the world has objective proof of anything? You might want to brush up on what you're talking about before you start trying to insult others cause you are just holding up a big neon sign yourself.

Do you understand that objective truth can't be established - at least so far?

You seem to be confused about these terms. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to brush up on them

If I place a rock on the ground in front of you and tell you there's a rock on the ground, that would be an objective proof or truth because it's verifiable with facts and my emotions or bias doesn't come into play.

If I tell you Chris had to sell his old gaming studio without releasing a single in house game that is also objective proof since it's verifiable with facts. If I tell you Star citizen has missed most, if not all, of their release dates given, also objective proof.

If I tell you this game is a scam that would be based on subjective evidence.

So so yeah I know my terms. If you'd like I can continue to school you some more.

DKLond

Kefo said:

DKLond said:

Kefo said:

DKLond said:

lukez said:

DKLond said:

lukez said:

i love this discussions between unmovable fanboys and unshackable haters.... so open minded on both sides.... humanity at it's best.... both sides are convinced they're the only ones that can be right since they're much smarter than the other side and have to teach them

Of course, no fan or hater can reach the perfect balance of the neutral observer who has zero arguments or tangible insight

arguments should be based on evidence of which we have absolutely 0 we have a lot of opinions... 

we're all just observers either being for or against it we have no access to evidence or insight just our perception of what is the truth

I think you're confusing the concept of evidence with proof. We have no proof.

Strictly speaking, no one in the world has (objective) proof of anything - because objective truth is but a theory that has yet to be conclusively established.

But we have lots and lots of evidence.

Well, I do - and I guess you don't.

I'm using this evidence to support my case - and that's what happens when people exchange opinions. Well, that's what's supposed to happen if anything is to come of it.

By being an observer without evidence - you're not contributing anything of value. Beyond that, you also elect to pass judgment on that of which you have limited understanding.

As such, you're not being very impressive.

Really? No one in the world has objective proof of anything? You might want to brush up on what you're talking about before you start trying to insult others cause you are just holding up a big neon sign yourself.

Do you understand that objective truth can't be established - at least so far?

You seem to be confused about these terms. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to brush up on them

If I place a rock on the ground in front of you and tell you there's a rock on the ground, that would be an objective proof or truth because it's verifiable with facts and my emotions or bias doesn't come into play.

If I tell you Chris had to sell his old gaming studio without releasing a single in house game that is also objective proof since it's verifiable with facts. If I tell you Star citizen has missed most, if not all, of their release dates given, also objective proof.

If I tell you this game is a scam that would be based on subjective evidence.

So so yeah I know my terms. If you'd like I can continue to school you some more.

You don't understand the concept of objectivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity

Before you can establish objective truth using subjective observation, you first have to establish that your (subjective) capacity to perceive reality is perfect - which you can't, because that's impossible.

As in, you can't objectively establish that a rock exists using your eyes. You can SUBJECTIVELY establish it, but that's different. You could be under the influence of drugs - or it could be a piece of wood carved to look like a rock, etc.

Now, we can talk about "everyday" objectivity - which is less strict and subject to limited human capacity (not to mention limited Kefo capacity). Meaning, we can all assume that human capacity for perception is flawless - and that we're capable of knowing all there is to know about something. I personally don't believe that, but we can play around with the notion.

So:

You're talking about a game under development that's been delayed - as some kind of interesting evidence? You're talking about a company that was established specifically to develop this one game - and apparently not having released another game is interesting evidence?

I fail to see how. You should probably explain why one of the most ambitious games of all time shouldn't be delayed - and explain to me what you think these delays are evidence of, because I don't follow.

I like being schooled - but you kinda need to know what you're talking about. Please let me know when you've educated yourself - and I'll be more than willing to listen.

Kefo

DKLond said:

Kefo said:

DKLond said:

Kefo said:

DKLond said:

lukez said:

DKLond said:

lukez said:

i love this discussions between unmovable fanboys and unshackable haters.... so open minded on both sides.... humanity at it's best.... both sides are convinced they're the only ones that can be right since they're much smarter than the other side and have to teach them

Of course, no fan or hater can reach the perfect balance of the neutral observer who has zero arguments or tangible insight

arguments should be based on evidence of which we have absolutely 0 we have a lot of opinions... 

we're all just observers either being for or against it we have no access to evidence or insight just our perception of what is the truth

I think you're confusing the concept of evidence with proof. We have no proof.

Strictly speaking, no one in the world has (objective) proof of anything - because objective truth is but a theory that has yet to be conclusively established.

But we have lots and lots of evidence.

Well, I do - and I guess you don't.

I'm using this evidence to support my case - and that's what happens when people exchange opinions. Well, that's what's supposed to happen if anything is to come of it.

By being an observer without evidence - you're not contributing anything of value. Beyond that, you also elect to pass judgment on that of which you have limited understanding.

As such, you're not being very impressive.

Really? No one in the world has objective proof of anything? You might want to brush up on what you're talking about before you start trying to insult others cause you are just holding up a big neon sign yourself.

Do you understand that objective truth can't be established - at least so far?

You seem to be confused about these terms. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to brush up on them

If I place a rock on the ground in front of you and tell you there's a rock on the ground, that would be an objective proof or truth because it's verifiable with facts and my emotions or bias doesn't come into play.

If I tell you Chris had to sell his old gaming studio without releasing a single in house game that is also objective proof since it's verifiable with facts. If I tell you Star citizen has missed most, if not all, of their release dates given, also objective proof.

If I tell you this game is a scam that would be based on subjective evidence.

So so yeah I know my terms. If you'd like I can continue to school you some more.

You don't understand the concept of objectivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity

Before you can establish objective truth using subjective observation, you first have to establish that your (subjective) capacity to perceive reality is perfect - which you can't, because that's impossible.

As in, you can't objectively establish that a rock exists using your eyes. You can SUBJECTIVELY establish it, but that's different. You could be under the influence of drugs - or it could be a piece of wood carved to look like a rock, etc.

Now, we can talk about "everyday" objectivity - which is less strict and subject to limited human capacity (not to mention limited Kefo capacity). Meaning, we can all assume that human capacity for perception is flawless - and that we're capable of knowing all there is to know about something. I personally don't believe that, but we can play around with the notion.

So:

You're talking about a game under development that's been delayed - as some kind of interesting evidence? You're talking about a company that was established specifically to develop this one game - and apparently not having released another game is interesting evidence?

I fail to see how. You should probably explain why one of the most ambitious games of all time shouldn't be delayed - and explain to me what you think these delays are evidence of, because I don't follow.

I like being schooled - but you kinda need to know what you're talking about. Please let me know when you've educated yourself - and I'll be more than willing to listen.

Personal attack aside you are trying to tell me that me placing a rock in front of you and telling you it's a rock is subjective? How the hell does my feelings come into play exactly? you might want to alert all the scientists in the world that what they are observing is actually subjective.

The game being delayed is objective evidence. You can't argue that fact otherwise I'm not sure there's any hope for you. Me talking about Chris failing with a previous studio is objective evidence to establish a point that history has a chance of repeating itself. Digital Anvil suffered massive delays because Chris likes to run his mouth  and eventually had to sell off his studio. CiG is suffering massive delays because Chris likes running his mouth off. Do you see the similarities yet? 

At at this point I'm just going to assume you are either trolling or lack the ability to grasp the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. If you'd like to have a real discussion then I will be happily to oblige.

adamlotus75

Arguing about what arguing is. It always comes to this.