So what happened to PG planets and landing on them?

gervaise1

filmoret said:

gervaise1 said:

<snup>

Whether its 2.6 or 3.1 or 4.0 matters not in the slightest. The alpha - the double edged sword that cuts both ways - is what matters. 

Is progress being made?   Well if you consider placing 4 walls and putting players in so they can shoot at each other.  AKA Star Marine.   Then they have made progress.

That is the question. Has progress been made?
Since the alpha launched in at the end of 2015. since last summer. And so on.

And if you check out the posts about how crappy it was when it released; or how crappy planets - sorry the planet - was when it first released and so on then it is hard to deny that progress is being made. Whether its fast enough; whether what they have released is "good" no one wants to talk about.

Instead its they planned to release "stuff" by the end of 2016 and call it 3.0. They released "stuff" and called it 2.6. Big deal!

Ignore the hype - what matters is what is in the alpha. Ignore what they "hope" to achieve (e.g. 3.0 by end of 2016). Ignore the attacks - there is no game, islands in the sun, no code, its all jpegs.

The alpha is what exists.

gervaise1

ZettaBytes said:

.

N.B. A few minutes after the two to three months cadence comment CR says that this is our goal going forward over the next year, so he is clearly talking about 4.0 arriving by end of 2017.

"this is our GOAL going forward"

So fast forward 12 months will we there be a discussion about how CR promised to deliver "4.0" and "failed" because they only released 3.6?

MaxBacon

gervaise1 said:

12 months will we there be a discussion about how CR promised to deliver "4.0" a

Nah, 12 months from now SC has already crashed and burnt. The scam will not last much longer! The fans will jump off bridges while CR will be in jail.

filmoret

MaxBacon said:

gervaise1 said:

12 months will we there be a discussion about how CR promised to deliver "4.0" a

Nah, 12 months from now SC has already crashed and burnt. The scam will not last much longer! The fans will jump off bridges while CR will be in jail.

They quit doing scammy stuff around December.  At least thats what I've seen anyways.  I think it took someone saying "shame on you" during a convention that made him wake up perhaps.

rpmcmurphy

gervaise1 said:

ZettaBytes said:

.

N.B. A few minutes after the two to three months cadence comment CR says that this is our goal going forward over the next year, so he is clearly talking about 4.0 arriving by end of 2017.

"this is our GOAL going forward"

So fast forward 12 months will we there be a discussion about how CR promised to deliver "4.0" and "failed" because they only released 3.6?

You guys and your selcetive quoting....
The part that was being contested was whether Roberts said it or whether the community said it, and as we saw it was Roberts who said it. 

I think we're going to be lucky if they deliver 3.1 before the end of this year. No need to worry about 3.3, 3.6 or 4.0

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

I think we're going to be lucky if they deliver 3.1 before the end of this year. No need to worry about 3.3, 3.6 or 4.0

Oh Wow! We just needed to say that and would have avoided that whole mess back there. --'

gervaise1

rpmcmurphy said:

gervaise1 said:

ZettaBytes said:

.

N.B. A few minutes after the two to three months cadence comment CR says that this is our goal going forward over the next year, so he is clearly talking about 4.0 arriving by end of 2017.

"this is our GOAL going forward"

So fast forward 12 months will we there be a discussion about how CR promised to deliver "4.0" and "failed" because they only released 3.6?

You guys and your selcetive quoting....
The part that was being contested was whether Roberts said it or whether the community said it, and as we saw it was Roberts who said it. 

I think we're going to be lucky if they deliver 3.1 before the end of this year. No need to worry about 3.3, 3.6 or 4.0

So ZettaBytes is selectively quoting? Or am I "one of the guys" you are talking about?

As to the point being contested I haven't the slightest interest. As I said the alpha is the key. Focus on that and you can ignore all the hype and all the negativity.

Erillion

gervaise1 said:

rpmcmurphy said:

gervaise1 said:

ZettaBytes said:

.

N.B. A few minutes after the two to three months cadence comment CR says that this is our goal going forward over the next year, so he is clearly talking about 4.0 arriving by end of 2017.

"this is our GOAL going forward"

So fast forward 12 months will we there be a discussion about how CR promised to deliver "4.0" and "failed" because they only released 3.6?

You guys and your selcetive quoting....
The part that was being contested was whether Roberts said it or whether the community said it, and as we saw it was Roberts who said it. 

I think we're going to be lucky if they deliver 3.1 before the end of this year. No need to worry about 3.3, 3.6 or 4.0

So ZettaBytes is selectively quoting? Or am I "one of the guys" you are talking about?

As to the point being contested I haven't the slightest interest. As I said the alpha is the key. Focus on that and you can ignore all the hype and all the negativity.

How dare you bring logic, common sense and facts into this beautiful conversation !?!1!?


Have fun

rpmcmurphy

gervaise1 said:

rpmcmurphy said:

gervaise1 said:

ZettaBytes said:

.

N.B. A few minutes after the two to three months cadence comment CR says that this is our goal going forward over the next year, so he is clearly talking about 4.0 arriving by end of 2017.

"this is our GOAL going forward"

So fast forward 12 months will we there be a discussion about how CR promised to deliver "4.0" and "failed" because they only released 3.6?

You guys and your selcetive quoting....
The part that was being contested was whether Roberts said it or whether the community said it, and as we saw it was Roberts who said it. 

I think we're going to be lucky if they deliver 3.1 before the end of this year. No need to worry about 3.3, 3.6 or 4.0

So ZettaBytes is selectively quoting? Or am I "one of the guys" you are talking about?

As to the point being contested I haven't the slightest interest. As I said the alpha is the key. Focus on that and you can ignore all the hype and all the negativity.

If you want to remove context from posts that you quote then yes you are indeed one of "those guys".

If you're not interested in who is factually correct then what are you getting involved for bar trying to stir up shit.

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

I think we're going to be lucky if they deliver 3.1 before the end of this year. No need to worry about 3.3, 3.6 or 4.0

Oh Wow! We just needed to say that and would have avoided that whole mess back there. --'

It was said yesterday early on in the conversation, in fact you even quoted it.....

He says in the gamescom video that they intend to deliver 3.0 before 19th December 2016 and that there will be 3 months between patches which means he intends to deliver 4.0 for December 2017.

I really shouldn't have to say this but notice that I use the word "intends" to show that I do not think these are fixed dates or any of that crap...

Kefo

Erillion said:

Kefo said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Erillion said:

Around 1.8 million Star Citizens,
approx.  half of them paying backers 
millions of hours of player testing

Nope .... it's not only the "whales"

 
Have fun

Any link to prove that there are 900,000 backers?

When Turbulent said there were 500,000 backers the project had 1.4 million accounts, which gives 35.7% of accounts = backers. Therefore that would give 642,000 backers out of 1.8 million forums accounts.

Or another way to look at it, in July 2016 when that Turbulent interview was made they had 500,000 backers, that was 42 months into the project which means 12,000 backers per month on average. We are now 51 months into the project so using those averages give us 612,000 backers.

A far far cry from 900,000 backers.

---

I said whales are the majority, not the only backers...

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/342854/how-much-have-you-spent
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/368468/how-much-money-have-you-spent-on-star-citizen-in-total
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/370131/wow-i-spent-how-much-poll
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/372290/number-of-ships-in-your-hangar

Whales out of the fracking wazoo...

Don't forget you have people leaving the project, getting refunds, having multiple accounts but that wouldn't be tracked or reported cause it wouldn't be as sensational as saying 1.8 million Star citizens!! 

Don't forget that there are many voluntary (!) subscribers that help to create the community content like the JumpPoint magazine and the many video blogs. Their contributions are also not shown in the numbers on the website.


Have fun

How does that have anything to do with the amount of "Star citizens" that are displayed on the webpage? Or are you telling me you don't need an account to be a subscriber which would be the icing on the stupid cake

Kefo

rensta said:

Kefo said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Erillion said:

Around 1.8 million Star Citizens,
approx.  half of them paying backers 
millions of hours of player testing

Nope .... it's not only the "whales"

 
Have fun

Any link to prove that there are 900,000 backers?

When Turbulent said there were 500,000 backers the project had 1.4 million accounts, which gives 35.7% of accounts = backers. Therefore that would give 642,000 backers out of 1.8 million forums accounts.

Or another way to look at it, in July 2016 when that Turbulent interview was made they had 500,000 backers, that was 42 months into the project which means 12,000 backers per month on average. We are now 51 months into the project so using those averages give us 612,000 backers.

A far far cry from 900,000 backers.

---

I said whales are the majority, not the only backers...

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/342854/how-much-have-you-spent
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/368468/how-much-money-have-you-spent-on-star-citizen-in-total
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/370131/wow-i-spent-how-much-poll
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/372290/number-of-ships-in-your-hangar

Whales out of the fracking wazoo...

Don't forget you have people leaving the project, getting refunds, having multiple accounts but that wouldn't be tracked or reported cause it wouldn't be as sensational as saying 1.8 million Star citizens!! 

Meh... even 1 million backers is really amazing.... on the crowd funding and hype meter SC is in the lead leaving everyone in the dust.... 
But yeah... no game yet,I guess i can really agree the game is the game they promised when PG planets are available and you can land on them. 

I doubt they have 1 million unique subscribers

MaxBacon

Kefo said:

I doubt they have 1 million unique subscribers

Yeah, though they only need 100K subs, at the lowest tier (10$), or 50K at 20$, they will get 1 Million a month from that alone, gotten outside the funding counter.

Erillion

>>> I doubt they have 1 million unique subscribers >>>

Well, if they do not have 1 million now, they will have soon. The player growth is pretty predictable - see the relevant graphs here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207
The number of paying backers is tied to the number of Star Citizens (many posters here will remember the link to what the representative of Turbulent said) and climbs steadily  too. 


Have fun

Erillion

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

**snip**

Don't forget that there are many voluntary (!) subscribers that help to create the community content like the JumpPoint magazine and the many video blogs. Their contributions are also not shown in the numbers on the website.


Have fun

How does that have anything to do with the amount of "Star citizens" that are displayed on the webpage? Or are you telling me you don't need an account to be a subscriber which would be the icing on the stupid cake

I am telling you that  there are additional funds going INTO the project via voluntary subscribers.
Every subscriber needs to have an account.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/subscriptions

Some posters listed various things that might REDUCE the amount of money available for Star Citizen development (like refunds). And I am telling you that this reduction is - in my opinion - more than compensated by these additional contributions from voluntary subscribers. Contributions you will NOT see on the "Funds raised" counter here: 
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

Anecdotal evidence from the SC players I personally know (a few dozen): about half of them are also subscribers. Of those that are subscribers, about a fourth are Imperator Prime subscribers and about three-fourths are Centurion subscribers.


Have fun

Kefo

Erillion said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

**snip**

Don't forget that there are many voluntary (!) subscribers that help to create the community content like the JumpPoint magazine and the many video blogs. Their contributions are also not shown in the numbers on the website.


Have fun

How does that have anything to do with the amount of "Star citizens" that are displayed on the webpage? Or are you telling me you don't need an account to be a subscriber which would be the icing on the stupid cake

I am telling you that  there are additional funds going INTO the project via voluntary subscribers.
Every subscriber needs to have an account.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/subscriptions

Some posters listed various things that might REDUCE the amount of money available for Star Citizen development (like refunds). And I am telling you that this reduction is - in my opinion - more than compensated by these additional contributions from voluntary subscribers. Contributions you will NOT see on the "Funds raised" counter here: 
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

Anecdotal evidence from the SC players I personally know (a few dozen): about half of them are also subscribers. Of those that are subscribers, about a fourth are Imperator Prime subscribers and about three-fourths are Centurion subscribers.


Have fun

And that's great but still has nothing to do with talking about the star citizen number on the website. 

Kefo

Erillion said:

>>> I doubt they have 1 million unique subscribers >>>

Well, if they do not have 1 million now, they will have soon. The player growth is pretty predictable - see the relevant graphs here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207
The number of paying backers is tied to the number of Star Citizens (many posters here will remember the link to what the representative of Turbulent said) and climbs steadily  too. 


Have fun

It's kinda not though. The star citizen number is just forum accounts and has nothing to do with who spends money 

Erillion

Kefo said:

And that's great but still has nothing to do with talking about the star citizen number on the website. 

You said :
"Don't forget you have people leaving the project, getting refunds, having multiple accounts but that wouldn't be tracked or reported cause it wouldn't be as sensational as saying 1.8 million Star citizens!! "

The sensational thing is NOT 1.8 million accounts on a website.

The sensational thing is that a large part (anywhere between one third and one half) of those 1.8 million accounts are ALSO Star Citizens' PAYING backers that (currently) contributed around 145 M$. And it does not matter if the money comes from multiple accounts - money is money.

A small amount of those 1.8 million Star Citizens may be lost via refunds. But the money lost from those refunds is - in my opinion - more than compensated by the money that voluntary subscribers contributed and still contribute.

So what I say to you:
Yes, some people may leave the project and get refunds. But the net effect of that seems to be negligible.


Have fun

Erillion

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

>>> I doubt they have 1 million unique subscribers >>>

Well, if they do not have 1 million now, they will have soon. The player growth is pretty predictable - see the relevant graphs here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207
The number of paying backers is tied to the number of Star Citizens (many posters here will remember the link to what the representative of Turbulent said) and climbs steadily  too. 


Have fun

It's kinda not though. The star citizen number is just forum accounts and has nothing to do with who spends money 

That is why there are other counters. For the money. For the amount of player ships.

But ultimately the Star Citizen number does not matter ... money is money ... whereever it comes from. And money means more paid team work hours for the improvement of Star Citizen until the game launches in a complete, tested and polished state.


Have fun

Kefo

Erillion said:

Kefo said:

And that's great but still has nothing to do with talking about the star citizen number on the website. 

You said :
"Don't forget you have people leaving the project, getting refunds, having multiple accounts but that wouldn't be tracked or reported cause it wouldn't be as sensational as saying 1.8 million Star citizens!! "

The sensational thing is NOT 1.8 million accounts on a website.

The sensational thing is that a large part (anywhere between one third and one half) of those 1.8 million accounts are ALSO Star Citizens' PAYING backers that (currently) contributed around 145 M$. And it does not matter if the money comes from multiple accounts - money is money.

A small amount of those 1.8 million Star Citizens may be lost via refunds. But the money lost from those refunds is - in my opinion - more than compensated by the money that voluntary subscribers contributed and still contribute.

So what I say to you:
Yes, some people may leave the project and get refunds. But the net effect of that seems to be negligible.


Have fun

We were talking about accounts. I don't care about the money in this instance (which probably also doesn't track refunds or additional funds from outside sources)

Erillion

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

Kefo said:

And that's great but still has nothing to do with talking about the star citizen number on the website. 

You said :
"Don't forget you have people leaving the project, getting refunds, having multiple accounts but that wouldn't be tracked or reported cause it wouldn't be as sensational as saying 1.8 million Star citizens!! "

The sensational thing is NOT 1.8 million accounts on a website.

The sensational thing is that a large part (anywhere between one third and one half) of those 1.8 million accounts are ALSO Star Citizens' PAYING backers that (currently) contributed around 145 M$. And it does not matter if the money comes from multiple accounts - money is money.

A small amount of those 1.8 million Star Citizens may be lost via refunds. But the money lost from those refunds is - in my opinion - more than compensated by the money that voluntary subscribers contributed and still contribute.

So what I say to you:
Yes, some people may leave the project and get refunds. But the net effect of that seems to be negligible.


Have fun

We were talking about accounts. I don't care about the money in this instance (which probably also doesn't track refunds or additional funds from outside sources)

YOU are talking about accounts.

I am talking about accumulated development money.

Incidentally- as this is a thread about procedurally generated planets we are both off topic ;-)


Have fun

rodarin

Yeah they have a billion accounts yet 5 people play on Twitch with maybe 100 total viewers. This is a fly free weekend (how many of those have they had?) SO actually 11 streamers and 180 viewers. Yeah thats awesome.

I have said it before I think a lot of the numbers are totally fabricated. I am not even sure they have raised all the money they claim they have.

How can something with a buy it once and own it forever keep making 20-50K a day when there isnt even a game and the items theyre selling dont even exist?

And dont give that crap about the Guiness Book of World Records and their accounting. That is such a stupid reason its not even worth mentioning.

This project boils down to the same arguments. The pro side NEVER shows anything they have actually done (because they havent done anything) ALL their rah rah crap is based around 'whats coming' or 'look at release x.xx' (which is the same song and dance because once the one everyone said wait until that comes out its really going to change the 'game' it is always a total flop so they go on to the next update) or 'look how much money they have raised or how many registered accounts they have. Like that really matters.

The only success these guys have any claim to is the amount of money thay have raised with almost nothing of substance to actually show for it. And even that relies on you believing they have actually raised that much money or sold that many jpegs.

Erillion

Great discussion when you exclude all arguments and verifiable facts that contradict your point of view right from the start. 

Great discussion when your basic position is "I have no idea why the whole world does not automatically agree to what I consider to be right and true."

Do not let facts get in the way of your ... ahem .... "interesting" view on the universe. 

It was nice talking to you. Or - as we say in German - "Gut das wir das besprochen haben.."


Have fun

Kefo

Erillion said:

Kefo said:

Erillion said:

Kefo said:

And that's great but still has nothing to do with talking about the star citizen number on the website. 

You said :
"Don't forget you have people leaving the project, getting refunds, having multiple accounts but that wouldn't be tracked or reported cause it wouldn't be as sensational as saying 1.8 million Star citizens!! "

The sensational thing is NOT 1.8 million accounts on a website.

The sensational thing is that a large part (anywhere between one third and one half) of those 1.8 million accounts are ALSO Star Citizens' PAYING backers that (currently) contributed around 145 M$. And it does not matter if the money comes from multiple accounts - money is money.

A small amount of those 1.8 million Star Citizens may be lost via refunds. But the money lost from those refunds is - in my opinion - more than compensated by the money that voluntary subscribers contributed and still contribute.

So what I say to you:
Yes, some people may leave the project and get refunds. But the net effect of that seems to be negligible.


Have fun

We were talking about accounts. I don't care about the money in this instance (which probably also doesn't track refunds or additional funds from outside sources)

YOU are talking about accounts.

I am talking about accumulated development money.

Incidentally- as this is a thread about procedurally generated planets we are both off topic ;-)


Have fun

Yeah I was talking about accounts and you quoted me and started mentioning money. I have no idea why and asked how it has any relevance to what I said. You need to follow along and there wouldn't need to be this useless back and forth

Kefo

Erillion said:

Great discussion when you exclude all arguments and verifiable facts that contradict your point of view right from the start. 

Great discussion when your basic position is "I have no idea why the whole world does not automatically agree to what I consider to be right and true."

Do not let facts get in the way of your ... ahem .... "interesting" view on the universe. 

It was nice talking to you. Or - as we say in German - "Gut das wir das besprochen haben.."


Have fun

I hate to tell you but your post contributed the same amount to the discussion as you say rodarins did.