When people make statements in interviews or whatever, then they tend to be held accountable for the things they have said, the recent debacle involving No Mans Sky at the very least should give developers pause about making 'statements' of intent,
Statements of intent ain't promises, and this is where the core lies. "I plan to do X feature" is not a promise, "I will do X feature" is a promise.
No Man's Sky devs did confirm features that weren't there, they didn't put it as a possibility or a margin of doubt, and that is the core of what makes a promised feature and a broken promise.
If people see something painted as a possibility as a promise, it's up to them and their understanding of the English language.
And yet CR's bit on stage did not use ambiguous wording. It was more of a definitive statement than anything else, ie "3.0 is our end of year release." That's as unambiguous as you can get, there is no "I plan" in there.
I'm not saying he promised because I'm not a fan of holding devs to "promises" during development but the wording they use is something they are either lax with because it's important they sound positive (and therefore push sales) which is highly probable given how much they brag about their project, its tech etc or they're just lazy about how they want people to perceive what they say.
And yet CR's bit on stage did not use ambiguous wording. It was more of a definitive statement than anything else, ie "3.0 is our end of year release." That's as unambiguous as you can get, here is no "I plan" in there.
I'm not saying he promised because I'm not a fan of promises during development but the wording they use is something they are either lax with because it's important they sound positive (and therefore push sales) which is highly probable given how much they brag about their project, its tech etc or they're just lazy about how they want people to perceive what they say.
But all of that is irrelevant to the matter of factual information, on which you can't let bias play selective perception. You did that with Brian Chambers bit on the Mining thing, you selectively pick that and highlight it, but when you take into account the entire bits of information we have on it, we have a different conclusion.
And when reporting something to be factual, that should be sourced, is when we will take on the accurate conclusion, that's why I picked that point because if we ignore certain points can we claim it as a promise when it was not. It's about the entire context.
This is the same thing as that silly thing of last year "Star Marine canceled, is already in-game", selectively reading part of the answer and ignoring the entire context, to transmit the intended message.
And yet CR's bit on stage did not use ambiguous wording. It was more of a definitive statement than anything else, ie "3.0 is our end of year release." That's as unambiguous as you can get, here is no "I plan" in there.
I'm not saying he promised because I'm not a fan of promises during development but the wording they use is something they are either lax with because it's important they sound positive (and therefore push sales) which is highly probable given how much they brag about their project, its tech etc or they're just lazy about how they want people to perceive what they say.
But all of that is irrelevant to the matter of factual information, on which you can't let bias play selective perception. You did that with Brian Chambers bit on the Mining thing, you selectively pick that and highlight it, but when you take into account the entire bits of information we have on it, we have a different conclusion.
And when reporting something to be factual, that should be sourced, is when we will take on the accurate conclusion, that's why I picked that point because if we ignore certain points can we claim it as a promise when it was not. It's about the entire context.
This is the same thing as that silly thing of last year "Star Marine cancelled, is already in-game", selectively reading part of the answer and ignoring the entire context, to transmit the intended message.
No I did not do that with BC's bit on mining. I told you I did a google search and "Mining is coming in 3.0" was repeated and quoted in virtually every link on the first page. Then I said that it's a bit annoying because we are getting different information from different people instead of the company having a unified message that they want to send out.
Even when stuff is sourced, there are plenty who will argue that the context you are viewing it under is the wrong context and what they really meant was the complete opposite of what they are saying....
I think a lot of problem is not just that people take things out of context but that CR also sets himself up at times with his choice of wording.
No I did not do that with BC's bit on mining. I told you I did a google search and "Mining is coming in 3.0" was repeated and quoted in virtually every link on the first page. Then I said that it's a bit annoying because we are getting different information from different people instead of the company having a unified message that they want to send out.
Even when stuff is sourced, there are plenty who will argue that the context you are viewing it under is the wrong context and what they really meant was the complete opposite of what they are saying....
I think a lot of problem is not just that people take things out of context but that CR also sets himself up at times with his choice of wording
It's like the last part of my other post let me post here instead "I'll always go against this type of behavior, even on the community like Reddit, Spectrum and such sometimes I even get labeled of "DS's alt account" because I call people on selectively taking the context they want, like when a mention of a feature = promised confirmed feature."
It's very often that we have this partial intentional reading of something, twisting context to fit a narrative only makes this worse because others will then only read a partial context. And this is why I got triggered at several items on that list because they are not accurate and only become so without the full context.
The mining bit is a bit like many features when they say "we plan to have X feature", people will go to Reddit and the forums say "Feature confirmed!", maybe I'm part of a minority but I always separate the possibility of a feature and the confirmation of a feature.
There is a lot of research being done into what is completed and not completed, even if the list isn't 100% accurate. I don't think this list is being made by mythical "goons" who exist only to learn everything about Star Citizen that they can so that they can hate it. I think it's made by concerned backers who are passionate about the game, who follow the game, but have lost patience with the lack of progress. By putting all the facts up (as best they can), there is a more tangible source for argument and debate about how development has been going.
To be fair, CIG now puts a disclaimer of might, looking into, subject to change, in front of nearly every concept they do. A lot of fans do see it as a promise like mining in 3.0 or actual faces on avatars. Even when told by CIG everything is subject to change and a lot of concepts may not get delivered as the game may launch as a MVP. But still the concepts are seen as promises which is why fans get so upset when something is changed. So if it was first reported that mining was a goal in 3.0 but later reported changed, some fans would take it as a broken promise. Of course covering everything with disclaimers means no promise can ever be broken. IMO.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
There is a lot of research being done into what is completed and not completed, even if the list isn't 100% accurate. I don't think this list is being made by mythical "goons" who exist only to learn everything about Star Citizen that they can so that they can hate it. I think it's made by concerned backers who are passionate about the game, who follow the game, but have lost patience with the lack of progress. By putting all the facts up (as best they can), there is a more tangible source for argument and debate about how development has been going.
The list is made by Goons wtf, the big majority aren't even backers, just there to poke fun at the game, you just need to look at the links. Even the twitter share link goes on mentioning @ dsmart on it.
If you think this are concerned backers who are passionate about the game, you are lying to yourself, just put some thinking on it and you'll get why such work and effort is being put on it...
There is a lot of research being done into what is completed and not completed, even if the list isn't 100% accurate. I don't think this list is being made by mythical "goons" who exist only to learn everything about Star Citizen that they can so that they can hate it. I think it's made by concerned backers who are passionate about the game, who follow the game, but have lost patience with the lack of progress. By putting all the facts up (as best they can), there is a more tangible source for argument and debate about how development has been going.
Think you have a too much faith in humans. The chart was made by people from a forum dedicated to shitting on the game, we all know it, fans and non-fans. Think to pretend it's fans is bit far fetched, I doubt very much they would make very glaring errors, even if it was best to their abilities, some of the info is easily found by googling.
@Octagon7711 It was firstly mentioned as a plan, and last time as a plan, not as a promise.
It's simple if it is not put as a promise they shouldn't be taken as one. Independent of you only wanting to focus/agree with only the negatives when it comes to SC you can't have the selective perception to only read what you want to read, ignoring a full context.
It's amazing how one-sided people can be, for example nobody notices how much of actually released promises are currently on the alpha, even major parts of the gameplay like EVA aren't there, perhaps is to make the list of what's not delivered longer? Who knows...
I guess some people would put faith that group from SA would provide them with one accurate and truthful representation of SC's status, as others also put that faith on DSmart... Disappointing, but not surprising.
Just playing devils advocate but what makes you a better host then the goons? You think they have a negative bias so won't update the list properly but you have a positive bias to the game so how do we know you will update it correctly and report on the bad things?
Stretch Goals do not include everything that was a promised feature, and the only way to make a proper factual list is do a very fundamental separation of what was promised, and what was planned (they are not the same).
There's a degree of trolling here, they put as a broken promise a "burning a t-shirt", but not how SQ42's drop-in multiplayer was dropped, it's just ridiculous...
Uhh everything actually lol. If you have a positive bias chances are you are reporting on only the good things about whatever t is you like. If you have a negative bias then it goes the other way. You want a true list then you find someone who has never heard of SC, lock them in a room with printed copies of everything Chris/CIG has said and don't let them come out until they have made a list free of outside influences.
If anything, aren't you glad someone is holding Chris accountable for all his promises? Or does it get in the way of "the dream"?
As I was browsing a review for GRE prep materials this morning, I ran across this apropos criticism of "Magoosh":
The slick marketing. Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I've noticed that, in many fields, the true thought leaders do not have flashy marketing. They don't need it, nor do they have time for it. Also, Magoosh pays peopleto refer others to its videos by using affiliate marketing links. Many if not most of the popular GRE blogs I've seen have glowing reviews of Magoosh GRE... along with a discount code: if you use the code, the owner of the blog gets a commission. And of course, there are lots of reviews and testimonials for Magoosh GRE... on Magoosh's website. I have noticed that bigger, more popular companies in the test prep industry become entrenched because their size allows them to market to more people, which in turn, increases their size even more.
Hmm... that stopped me in my tracks. Just substitute "CIG" for "Magoosh", "Star Citizen" for "GRE", "game" for "test prep" and... there you go.
Before some knuckle dragger jumps in with "CIG haz zero marketing budget"... what do you think @MaxBacon@thundercles and @CrazKanuk et al are up to? It's called guerrilla marketing. My guess is that they will do their best to at the very least get this thread unstickied, preferably closed, and will likely succeed. Anything to keep people feeding into the dream.
Times out!!!! @MaxBacon & @CrazKanuk, if yall gettin paid I better get minez!!!
Keep the post up, I give 2 shizzes. I'm simply pointing out that @BillMurphy just pinned a link that is obviously anti-SC.
Full disclosure: I bought into SC in the beginning and haven't played it in 6 months. Pretty disappointed in how it's going. Have requested and been refunded.
The pretext in this thread is off the f'n charts.
No, I'm not getting paid. I wish! I was an early backer at a whopping $20. Nearly every crowdfunding project I've backed has been higher than that, apart from Wolcen.
Just pointing out that if we're being honest and upfront, the list isn't objective at all. Do I think that @MaxBacon, @Erillion or myself could give a more objective list? Of course I DO! However, I'm sure it would be slanted and I'm sure we'd be called out on it the same way this list has. However, just for clarity, there are items in this list which makes in entirely inaccurate. Just because someone provides a link doesn't mean it's right, or even vetted for that matter.
I'm still waiting on @Kefo to comment on the items that @MaxBacon brought up. Unfortunately, as accurate as this list might be, as soon as you allow unvetted or outright wrong data into something like this, it calls the entire list into question. Unless they remove the items.
That being said, any list isn't going to be accurate anyway because we have no idea what CIGs list is and that's all that really matters. Only they can tell us what they're working on and what they even plan to work on. Maybe someone should ask them for a feature list that we can track to.
I already commented on the first page. Use the report button and correct the mistakes and see if whoever is maintaining it fixes the issues. The list is fairly new so maybe with time it will turn into something that can be trusted. At the very least it provides plenty of links to get info from to hold Chris accountable to everything he lets stream out of his mouth.
And yes, perhaps we need a place more excluded of personal or biased interpretations. I can try to put something up and I would welcome you to contest anything you wouldn't consider accurate, I really do believe we need a tracker like this that needs to stay objective.
No you can not. Anyone who is ready to spend enough time to make a list like this has an agenda. Either they are supporting Star Citizen, or against Star Citizen.
You might be able to hide your agenda better and fool people better than the list's creator. But we won't be seeing an objective list.
Yeah, but maybe he wants a sticky
In all fairness I could care less whether it stays or not, but if it is left then it will be a great reference for the next time that someone is whining about who pro-SC MMORPG.com is.
My guess is that there's probably a better, more accurate reddit list somewhere. This is just the most convenient and it has colors and looks like a graph, so it must be accurate
I've posted another list from Reddit that wasn't quite up to date before (listed stretch goals, promises, etc) and got a less then stellar response from one of the usual suspects lol.
Uhh everything actually lol. If you have a positive bias chances are you are reporting on only the good things about whatever t is you like. If you have a negative bias then it goes the other way. You want a true list then you find someone who has never heard of SC, lock them in a room with printed copies of everything Chris/CIG has said and don't let them come out until they have made a list free of outside influences.
Facts are facts, they can't be denied or confirmed by bias, but they can however and that site shows it, twisted and manipulated by selective perception and lack of the whole context.
Uhh everything actually lol. If you have a positive bias chances are you are reporting on only the good things about whatever t is you like. If you have a negative bias then it goes the other way. You want a true list then you find someone who has never heard of SC, lock them in a room with printed copies of everything Chris/CIG has said and don't let them come out until they have made a list free of outside influences.
Facts are facts, they can't be denied or confirmed by bias, but they can however and that site shows it, twisted and manipulated by selective perception and lack of the whole context.
But of course, a group of random internet trolls would fit your negative bias I believe more than anything positive would, so I guess that would be the place you would want to be. Someone like you would only post something positive for the sake of credibility, because overall, it's as one-sided as it gets. =/
You do realize I'm not a member of the something awful forums right? Never been on them, never paid for access or used someone else's account.
Facts are facts but when bias comes into play you tend to leave out certain facts that would put your position on shaky ground. I never said the list was perfect and I made it clear it was a goon run list.
So if you'd like to leave your passive aggressive attacks at the door it would be appreciated and instead talk about the topic at hand instead of trying to get the thread closed
Facts are facts but when bias comes into play you tend to leave out certain facts that would put your position on shaky ground. I never said the list was perfect and I made it clear it was a goon run list.
When it comes to discussions about facts, this is by extremes... I know very well this is put as "I have 0 credibility cause I'm a fanboy and such.".
So by the main rule is: whoever says anything negative is saying the factual truth, I know it, you know it, we all know it.
This is more about taking any credibility out of those who do not share your narrative (like Phaserlight did on the previous page by how he was labeling a group of posters and implying ill intentions) than the actual outcome of the discussions we have. This is a big part of how we're always going in circles lol
Facts are facts but when bias comes into play you tend to leave out certain facts that would put your position on shaky ground. I never said the list was perfect and I made it clear it was a goon run list.
When it comes to discussions about facts, this is by extremes... I know very well this is put as "I have 0 credibility cause I'm a fanboy and such.".
So by the main rule is: whoever says anything negative is saying the factual truth, I know it, you know it, we all know it.
This is more about taking any credibility out of those who do not share your narrative (like Phaserlight did on the previous page by how he was labeling a group of posters and implying ill intentions) than the actual outcome of the discussions we have. This is a big part of how we're always going in circles lol
Let me clarify before this discussion goes down the wrong path. When I said you tend to leave out certain facts I didn't actually mean you. It was supposed to be a generalization as both sides do it.
@Octagon7711 It was firstly mentioned as a plan, and last time as a plan, not as a promise.
It's simple if it is not put as a promise they shouldn't be taken as one. Independent of you only wanting to focus/agree with only the negatives when it comes to SC you can't have the selective perception to only read what you want to read, ignoring a full context.
It's amazing how one-sided people can be, for example nobody notices how much of actually released promises are currently on the alpha, even major parts of the gameplay like EVA aren't there, perhaps is to make the list of what's not delivered longer? Who knows...
I guess some people would put faith that group from SA would provide them with one accurate and truthful representation of SC's status, as others also put that faith on DSmart... Disappointing, but not surprising.
People take things the way they want. You can suggest they take things a certain way but everyone brings their own past experiences to the table, not yours.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
No I did not do that with BC's bit on mining. I told you I did a google search and "Mining is coming in 3.0" was repeated and quoted in virtually every link on the first page. Then I said that it's a bit annoying because we are getting different information from different people instead of the company having a unified message that they want to send out.
Even when stuff is sourced, there are plenty who will argue that the context you are viewing it under is the wrong context and what they really meant was the complete opposite of what they are saying....
I think a lot of problem is not just that people take things out of context but that CR also sets himself up at times with his choice of wording
It's like the last part of my other post let me post here instead "I'll always go against this type of behavior, even on the community like Reddit, Spectrum and such sometimes I even get labeled of "DS's alt account" because I call people on selectively taking the context they want, like when a mention of a feature = promised confirmed feature."
It's very often that we have this partial intentional reading of something, twisting context to fit a narrative only makes this worse because others will then only read a partial context. And this is why I got triggered at several items on that list because they are not accurate and only become so without the full context.
The mining bit is a bit like many features when they say "we plan to have X feature", people will go to Reddit and the forums say "Feature confirmed!", maybe I'm part of a minority but I always separate the possibility of a feature and the confirmation of a feature.
As I've mentioned in previous threads: it doesn't matter a bit what verbiage they used to describe these features. We all know crowdfunding hinges on the concepts of the game, and CIG knows this as well.
Your post contends that CIG made these comments totally ignorant of their funding scheme and how it would boost revenue. Doesn't matter what word they used, they were very consciously making statements to attempt to entice gamers. Since the gamers are funding the development, they have every right to take issue with the devs making throwaway comments about game features while raking in cash from backers based on the concept of those features.
Sorry, but crowdfunding has changed the game, as the developers no longer need to have even a working prototype system in the game at the time. They can still make pie-in-the-sky comments about what they "plan to do" as much as they like, and they (not just CIG) have taken full advantage of this freedom to court gamer interest for more $$$.
So long as CIG wants to casually list all these plans in public while raking in cash, I don't give a rat's ass what term they use when describing their "plans," they're benefitting monetarily by even suggesting such an incredible scope to the game.
So yea, gamers and onlookers have every right to go "Whoa, wait a minute, what happened to the talk about XYZ?"
If they usually answer questions about features and on many, they put them on the realm of possibility, you go and take it as a promise and then complain it is a broken promise?!
You can blame them all you want for talking a lot about features that might or might not reach the game, or if so, not how they originally planned... Now that they would be failing to deliver a promise it's a whole different story and a whole different tier of liability.
I don't blame them for answering endless questions about features that they don't want to exclude from the game's design entirely, so their response implies the maybe.
Once plans flesh out on design and enter production, that's when what was previously talked about gets confirmed, dropped or changed, one example would be Cargo mechanics.
If they usually answer questions about features and on many, they put them on the realm of possibility, you go and take it as a promise and then complain it is a broken promise?!
You can blame them all you want for talking a lot about features that might or might not reach the game, or if so, not how they originally planned... Now that they would be failing to deliver a promise it's a whole different story and a whole different tier of liability.
I don't blame them for answering endless questions about features that they don't want to exclude from the game's design entirely, so their response implies the maybe.
Once plans flesh out on design and enter production, that's when what was previously talked about gets confirmed, dropped or changed, one example would be Cargo mechanics.
Look at you, claiming I said his statements were promises.. Maybe you shouldn't have snipped the post.
Your kind of archaic thinking about developer commentary during development worked when folks like Bill got a hold of copies and could describe a DEFINITE gameplay experience with the release build before retail hit. It worked because investors had ample resources and experience in vetting projects, which means we were only ever even saw projects who were funded and found to be of enough quality, brevity in scope, and novelty to warrant bringing to project to fruition. The average gamer doesn't have the resources or knowledge these traditional investors have, and CIG knows this. Chris even says as much, though he frames it as a release from the chains of a traditional backing instead of a release from responsibility for his unreasonably heavy bluster about the project. These developers didn't need to make unrealistic feature comments to the public to attempt to complete the project; they had already secured funding to complete the game when they began asking for preorders.
Facts are facts: they are being supported by the gamers based upon THEIR description of what the game will be like. Their comments are, in effect: "hey, this is what the game can be like, but only if we have YOUR monnnnneeyyyzz to make it a reality!" They aren't making this appeal to investors with extensive resources to vet the project, it's scope, it's developer, or its marketing appeal. They're making it directly to average Joe gamers, and the gamers have less access and influence on the project's progress and scope than a traditional investor would. That's a huge difference, but you conveniently gloss over or ignore that it's a fact of crowdfunding.
For your argument to hold any weight whatsoever, you MUST contend that CIG described their game systems and plans TOTALLY ignorant of how it would help to garner more crowdfunding revenue for them, as the primary intent of the comments are irrelevant when the effect is monetary gain. Are you seriously submitting that's the case?
No matter how it eventually works out, the hoopla around SC's development should be something held up by folks like EA as a reasoning to why crowdfunding is LESS gamer-friendly, not more. When was the last time you were even ASKED to spend a couple grand on Battlefield? CoD? The Drake series? Tomb Raider???? No???
Look at you, claiming I said his statements were promises.. Maybe you shouldn't have snipped the post.
You should look at yourself, My point stands on promised features are promised features, plans/hopes are not promised features.
Those are facts. There's promised features that have been failed to be delivered absolutely, what you went and snipped my post about is on the point I was making about every mention of anything to be taken as a promised confirmed features, when they are not, when they are promised features they WILL be put as such.
That was my entire point, there are many things that are promised, there are many others that aren't.
They are liable to things as what they sold the game on KS, and there are broken promises there as SQ42's drop-in co-op, the stretch goals and the things stated as confirmed game features.
Look at you, claiming I said his statements were promises.. Maybe you shouldn't have snipped the post.
You should look at yourself, My point stands on promised features are promised features, plans/hopes are not promised features.
Those are facts. There's promised features that have been failed to be delivered absolutely, what you went and snipped my post about is on the point I was making about every mention of anything to be taken as a promised confirmed features, when they are not, when they are promised features they WILL be put as such.
That was my entire point, there are many things that are promised, there are many others that aren't.
They are liable to things as what they sold the game on KS, and there are broken promises there as SQ42's drop-in co-op, the stretch goals and the things stated as confirmed game features.
And my point was it's irrelevant what term they used. Plans, promises, wishful thinking while taking a shit on lunch... If they made them publicly known and it garnered them cash, we have every right to question the grounds upon which they are asking for money to support their development.
You literally ignored the line of reasoning as to why (the fact that they knowingly created financial gain through their crowdfunding with these statements) and attempted to play more semantics. Again, equivocation.
Comments
And yet CR's bit on stage did not use ambiguous wording. It was more of a definitive statement than anything else, ie "3.0 is our end of year release." That's as unambiguous as you can get, there is no "I plan" in there.
I'm not saying he promised because I'm not a fan of holding devs to "promises" during development but the wording they use is something they are either lax with because it's important they sound positive (and therefore push sales) which is highly probable given how much they brag about their project, its tech etc or they're just lazy about how they want people to perceive what they say.
Delegate it whenever you're in a lose-lose situation...... I like your style!
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
And when reporting something to be factual, that should be sourced, is when we will take on the accurate conclusion, that's why I picked that point because if we ignore certain points can we claim it as a promise when it was not. It's about the entire context.
This is the same thing as that silly thing of last year "Star Marine canceled, is already in-game", selectively reading part of the answer and ignoring the entire context, to transmit the intended message.
No I did not do that with BC's bit on mining. I told you I did a google search and "Mining is coming in 3.0" was repeated and quoted in virtually every link on the first page. Then I said that it's a bit annoying because we are getting different information from different people instead of the company having a unified message that they want to send out.
Even when stuff is sourced, there are plenty who will argue that the context you are viewing it under is the wrong context and what they really meant was the complete opposite of what they are saying....
I think a lot of problem is not just that people take things out of context but that CR also sets himself up at times with his choice of wording.
It's very often that we have this partial intentional reading of something, twisting context to fit a narrative only makes this worse because others will then only read a partial context. And this is why I got triggered at several items on that list because they are not accurate and only become so without the full context.
The mining bit is a bit like many features when they say "we plan to have X feature", people will go to Reddit and the forums say "Feature confirmed!", maybe I'm part of a minority but I always separate the possibility of a feature and the confirmation of a feature.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
If you think this are concerned backers who are passionate about the game, you are lying to yourself, just put some thinking on it and you'll get why such work and effort is being put on it...
Think you have a too much faith in humans. The chart was made by people from a forum dedicated to shitting on the game, we all know it, fans and non-fans. Think to pretend it's fans is bit far fetched, I doubt very much they would make very glaring errors, even if it was best to their abilities, some of the info is easily found by googling.
It's simple if it is not put as a promise they shouldn't be taken as one. Independent of you only wanting to focus/agree with only the negatives when it comes to SC you can't have the selective perception to only read what you want to read, ignoring a full context.
It's amazing how one-sided people can be, for example nobody notices how much of actually released promises are currently on the alpha, even major parts of the gameplay like EVA aren't there, perhaps is to make the list of what's not delivered longer? Who knows...
I guess some people would put faith that group from SA would provide them with one accurate and truthful representation of SC's status, as others also put that faith on DSmart... Disappointing, but not surprising.
Uhh everything actually lol. If you have a positive bias chances are you are reporting on only the good things about whatever t is you like. If you have a negative bias then it goes the other way. You want a true list then you find someone who has never heard of SC, lock them in a room with printed copies of everything Chris/CIG has said and don't let them come out until they have made a list free of outside influences.
I already commented on the first page. Use the report button and correct the mistakes and see if whoever is maintaining it fixes the issues. The list is fairly new so maybe with time it will turn into something that can be trusted. At the very least it provides plenty of links to get info from to hold Chris accountable to everything he lets stream out of his mouth.
I've posted another list from Reddit that wasn't quite up to date before (listed stretch goals, promises, etc) and got a less then stellar response from one of the usual suspects lol.
Example: Fox News
You do realize I'm not a member of the something awful forums right? Never been on them, never paid for access or used someone else's account.
Facts are facts but when bias comes into play you tend to leave out certain facts that would put your position on shaky ground. I never said the list was perfect and I made it clear it was a goon run list.
So if you'd like to leave your passive aggressive attacks at the door it would be appreciated and instead talk about the topic at hand instead of trying to get the thread closed
So by the main rule is: whoever says anything negative is saying the factual truth, I know it, you know it, we all know it.
This is more about taking any credibility out of those who do not share your narrative (like Phaserlight did on the previous page by how he was labeling a group of posters and implying ill intentions) than the actual outcome of the discussions we have. This is a big part of how we're always going in circles lol
Let me clarify before this discussion goes down the wrong path. When I said you tend to leave out certain facts I didn't actually mean you. It was supposed to be a generalization as both sides do it.
People take things the way they want. You can suggest they take things a certain way but everyone brings their own past experiences to the table, not yours.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
As I've mentioned in previous threads: it doesn't matter a bit what verbiage they used to describe these features. We all know crowdfunding hinges on the concepts of the game, and CIG knows this as well.
Your post contends that CIG made these comments totally ignorant of their funding scheme and how it would boost revenue. Doesn't matter what word they used, they were very consciously making statements to attempt to entice gamers. Since the gamers are funding the development, they have every right to take issue with the devs making throwaway comments about game features while raking in cash from backers based on the concept of those features.
Sorry, but crowdfunding has changed the game, as the developers no longer need to have even a working prototype system in the game at the time. They can still make pie-in-the-sky comments about what they "plan to do" as much as they like, and they (not just CIG) have taken full advantage of this freedom to court gamer interest for more $$$.
So long as CIG wants to casually list all these plans in public while raking in cash, I don't give a rat's ass what term they use when describing their "plans," they're benefitting monetarily by even suggesting such an incredible scope to the game.
So yea, gamers and onlookers have every right to go "Whoa, wait a minute, what happened to the talk about XYZ?"
EDIT - for grammatical clarity
You can blame them all you want for talking a lot about features that might or might not reach the game, or if so, not how they originally planned... Now that they would be failing to deliver a promise it's a whole different story and a whole different tier of liability.
I don't blame them for answering endless questions about features that they don't want to exclude from the game's design entirely, so their response implies the maybe.
Once plans flesh out on design and enter production, that's when what was previously talked about gets confirmed, dropped or changed, one example would be Cargo mechanics.
Look at you, claiming I said his statements were promises.. Maybe you shouldn't have snipped the post.
Your kind of archaic thinking about developer commentary during development worked when folks like Bill got a hold of copies and could describe a DEFINITE gameplay experience with the release build before retail hit. It worked because investors had ample resources and experience in vetting projects, which means we were only ever even saw projects who were funded and found to be of enough quality, brevity in scope, and novelty to warrant bringing to project to fruition. The average gamer doesn't have the resources or knowledge these traditional investors have, and CIG knows this. Chris even says as much, though he frames it as a release from the chains of a traditional backing instead of a release from responsibility for his unreasonably heavy bluster about the project. These developers didn't need to make unrealistic feature comments to the public to attempt to complete the project; they had already secured funding to complete the game when they began asking for preorders.
Facts are facts: they are being supported by the gamers based upon THEIR description of what the game will be like. Their comments are, in effect: "hey, this is what the game can be like, but only if we have YOUR monnnnneeyyyzz to make it a reality!" They aren't making this appeal to investors with extensive resources to vet the project, it's scope, it's developer, or its marketing appeal. They're making it directly to average Joe gamers, and the gamers have less access and influence on the project's progress and scope than a traditional investor would. That's a huge difference, but you conveniently gloss over or ignore that it's a fact of crowdfunding.
For your argument to hold any weight whatsoever, you MUST contend that CIG described their game systems and plans TOTALLY ignorant of how it would help to garner more crowdfunding revenue for them, as the primary intent of the comments are irrelevant when the effect is monetary gain. Are you seriously submitting that's the case?
No matter how it eventually works out, the hoopla around SC's development should be something held up by folks like EA as a reasoning to why crowdfunding is LESS gamer-friendly, not more. When was the last time you were even ASKED to spend a couple grand on Battlefield? CoD? The Drake series? Tomb Raider???? No???
Those are facts. There's promised features that have been failed to be delivered absolutely, what you went and snipped my post about is on the point I was making about every mention of anything to be taken as a promised confirmed features, when they are not, when they are promised features they WILL be put as such.
That was my entire point, there are many things that are promised, there are many others that aren't.
They are liable to things as what they sold the game on KS, and there are broken promises there as SQ42's drop-in co-op, the stretch goals and the things stated as confirmed game features.
And my point was it's irrelevant what term they used. Plans, promises, wishful thinking while taking a shit on lunch... If they made them publicly known and it garnered them cash, we have every right to question the grounds upon which they are asking for money to support their development.
You literally ignored the line of reasoning as to why (the fact that they knowingly created financial gain through their crowdfunding with these statements) and attempted to play more semantics. Again, equivocation.