at some point most of the backers are going to get tired of waiting and broken promises and missed deadlines and the money will slow to a trickle.
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
Backers are in control of nothing. That is one of the most delusional statements a SC defender has posted......lol
Backers are in control of the linchpin known as money. Flow of money controls the entire project. Hence backers control the entire project. To deny this is to deny reality. Have fun with that.
The aim to make profit controls every business. Backers don't control the making of Star Citizen any more than customers control games made by Electronic Arts.
Vrika said: The aim to make profit controls every business. Backers don't control the making of Star Citizen any more than customers control games made by Electronic Arts.
That is hyperbole.
Backers have a much higher influence on this project even if they are not legal investors. It does have quite a bunch of similarities to one investment.
This project lies on a constant funding dependent on those backers, this is why is of CIGs best interest to keep attending to the overall feedback of such community, not doing so and ever risking direct confrontation, directly harms that income.
That is reality of the SC project, that falls with its dependency on the continuous crowdfund, hence forcefully more sensitive to what their backers want, it's directly mutual benefit. And it shows in how they react to it.
A company like EA does not have such degree of dependency or even proximity, hence why they can afford public outcries that piss off the world.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
"may even influence Chris Roberts direction if he can be convinced "
This is the kind of thing I mean - in the same sentence you state backers have full control, then state they MAY be able to convince CR.
Your first point was simple and reasonable...this second point is a nonsense and comes across to me like you just wanted to "win" the whole argument.
Please try not to conflate collective FINANCIAL CONTROL over the entire project, that project being Chris Roberts vision of the game. With full CONTROL OVER THE VISION, backers may influence direction of that vision if deemed a sound decision to make, but individual backers do not hold all power to completely control direction of the vision like a single investor may. I feel you are being disingenuous in suggesting you can't understand that difference and perhaps intentionally do not want to.
I am not the one that believes that the $11,576,087 gross USA income (from only 4.3 % of the world population) is the only income generated by the Wing Commander movie.
Have fun
You show me some shred of proof that they broke even over enough time and I’ll believe you. Otherwise I could just go into the Wikipedia page and edit the statement to say because it flopped so poorly in other countries it wasn’t worth recording how much money was made because it was so little.
And because it’s on Wikipedia without a source you will have to believe it.
at some point most of the backers are going to get tired of waiting and broken promises and missed deadlines and the money will slow to a trickle.
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
I’ve never said 90 days. Not sure why you bring up Derek Smart in all this except as a convienant straw man or you think I am Derek Smart in which case you have bigger issues then white knighting for a game.
Have I ever said 3.0 wasn’t a step forward? No I’ve sinply stated where they failed to deliver, much like they have many times in the past. And no backers aren’t happy, at least not all of them. To make a statement like that is to just bury your head in the sand.
Please point out where I said it will end soon. I will give you a hint, I didn’t. I said at some point and that point could be tomorrow or it could be in another 6 years. Also never said I hate CR but you do enjoy putting words into people’s mouths. Try to keep up with the conversation please so I don’t have to repeat myself.
So investors should just keep pouring money down a black hole instead of expecting someone to deliver on all the promises they made? They should just keep tossing money at someone who can’t even prove they can release one game? Delays happen but at some point you cut the person off because they are just full of hot air. You’d make the perfect investor if you believe what you said but at least you won’t have your money for long. I have a project I need help with financially but I’m just going to keep telling you to give me more money so that I can deliver what I oringinally promised you but don’t worry it will happen eventually even though I haven’t actually delivered anything that will reassure you.
If the investors looked at the game and say they already gave 30 million for the project (wildly guessing) and you being CR came up to them and said hey I need another 30 million to finish this game but I promise it will be the best thing ever! They relent because they expect to make 80 million from sales so 20 million profit ain’t bad. 2 years later you come to investors again and say you need another 30 million but this time you promise it’s going to happen and the end user is going to love it! You really think investors are going to give you that money because the end user will love it? They will end up losing money and going broke because you want to make it the best end user experience ever!
How many investors do you think will still be around if they lost money on every single endeveaour because they want the end user to have a great experience? If profit isn’t such a big deal then I’m sure everyone working for CIG, Chris Roberts and family included will be willing to take a bare minimum pay check to cover food, shelter, clothes and the basic necessities to survive. No more flying over the world, driving nice cars, living in nice houses, eating out, taking vacations, etc.
The simple fact that you even made a statement like that just tells me how blindly you will defend CR and any game he tries to create no matter what he or the project does.
Otherwise I could just go into the Wikipedia page and edit the statement to say because it flopped so poorly in other countries it wasn’t worth recording how much money was made because it was so little.
Ah yes, as you are from London ..... it has been many years now that the economic success of a movie primarily was coming from the english speaking countries and/or the first four box office weekends. Worldwide box office, DVD, streaming, blue ray, TV rights, merchandizing form a HUGE part of the lifetime income.
at some point most of the backers are going to get tired of waiting and broken promises and missed deadlines and the money will slow to a trickle.
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
I’ve never said 90 days. Not sure why you bring up Derek Smart in all this except as a convienant straw man or you think I am Derek Smart in which case you have bigger issues then white knighting for a game.
Have I ever said 3.0 wasn’t a step forward? No I’ve sinply stated where they failed to deliver, much like they have many times in the past. And no backers aren’t happy, at least not all of them. To make a statement like that is to just bury your head in the sand.
Please point out where I said it will end soon. I will give you a hint, I didn’t. I said at some point and that point could be tomorrow or it could be in another 6 years. Also never said I hate CR but you do enjoy putting words into people’s mouths. Try to keep up with the conversation please so I don’t have to repeat myself.
So investors should just keep pouring money down a black hole instead of expecting someone to deliver on all the promises they made? They should just keep tossing money at someone who can’t even prove they can release one game? Delays happen but at some point you cut the person off because they are just full of hot air. You’d make the perfect investor if you believe what you said but at least you won’t have your money for long. I have a project I need help with financially but I’m just going to keep telling you to give me more money so that I can deliver what I oringinally promised you but don’t worry it will happen eventually even though I haven’t actually delivered anything that will reassure you.
If the investors looked at the game and say they already gave 30 million for the project (wildly guessing) and you being CR came up to them and said hey I need another 30 million to finish this game but I promise it will be the best thing ever! They relent because they expect to make 80 million from sales so 20 million profit ain’t bad. 2 years later you come to investors again and say you need another 30 million but this time you promise it’s going to happen and the end user is going to love it! You really think investors are going to give you that money because the end user will love it? They will end up losing money and going broke because you want to make it the best end user experience ever!
How many investors do you think will still be around if they lost money on every single endeveaour because they want the end user to have a great experience? If profit isn’t such a big deal then I’m sure everyone working for CIG, Chris Roberts and family included will be willing to take a bare minimum pay check to cover food, shelter, clothes and the basic necessities to survive. No more flying over the world, driving nice cars, living in nice houses, eating out, taking vacations, etc.
The simple fact that you even made a statement like that just tells me how blindly you will defend CR and any game he tries to create no matter what he or the project does.
This entire post is irrelevant nonsense in a crowdfund setting (and most of what you have stated here actually supports my entire position). "development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy."
Thank you for displaying how irrelevant and quite repulsive your opinions on why Star Citizen needs to be controlled by some profit making overlord though, very insightful.
Ah yes, as you are from London ..... it has been many years now that the economic success of a movie primarily was coming from the english speaking countries and/or the first four box office weekends. Worldwide box office, DVD, streaming, blue ray, TV rights, merchandizing form a HUGE part of the lifetime income.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
What does that mean? If I can get enough of the backers to support having all the ships painted pink, will they do it? I doubt it. So how much control do the backers really have? Sure they could stop buying ships but then they would lose their perceived advantages when the game finally launches.
This concept that backers have FULL control is the very definition of BS. When backers make a poll on the official forum that CIG doesnt like, it gets locked. An example is when backers did a poll about allowing refunds.
25 percent of backers felt refunds should be available but CIG closed than locked the thread. Now can you honestly say that those 25% of backers had full control of the project? If they had not locked that thread, could that percentage have been higher?
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
at some point most of the backers are going to get tired of waiting and broken promises and missed deadlines and the money will slow to a trickle.
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
I’ve never said 90 days. Not sure why you bring up Derek Smart in all this except as a convienant straw man or you think I am Derek Smart in which case you have bigger issues then white knighting for a game.
Have I ever said 3.0 wasn’t a step forward? No I’ve sinply stated where they failed to deliver, much like they have many times in the past. And no backers aren’t happy, at least not all of them. To make a statement like that is to just bury your head in the sand.
Please point out where I said it will end soon. I will give you a hint, I didn’t. I said at some point and that point could be tomorrow or it could be in another 6 years. Also never said I hate CR but you do enjoy putting words into people’s mouths. Try to keep up with the conversation please so I don’t have to repeat myself.
So investors should just keep pouring money down a black hole instead of expecting someone to deliver on all the promises they made? They should just keep tossing money at someone who can’t even prove they can release one game? Delays happen but at some point you cut the person off because they are just full of hot air. You’d make the perfect investor if you believe what you said but at least you won’t have your money for long. I have a project I need help with financially but I’m just going to keep telling you to give me more money so that I can deliver what I oringinally promised you but don’t worry it will happen eventually even though I haven’t actually delivered anything that will reassure you.
If the investors looked at the game and say they already gave 30 million for the project (wildly guessing) and you being CR came up to them and said hey I need another 30 million to finish this game but I promise it will be the best thing ever! They relent because they expect to make 80 million from sales so 20 million profit ain’t bad. 2 years later you come to investors again and say you need another 30 million but this time you promise it’s going to happen and the end user is going to love it! You really think investors are going to give you that money because the end user will love it? They will end up losing money and going broke because you want to make it the best end user experience ever!
How many investors do you think will still be around if they lost money on every single endeveaour because they want the end user to have a great experience? If profit isn’t such a big deal then I’m sure everyone working for CIG, Chris Roberts and family included will be willing to take a bare minimum pay check to cover food, shelter, clothes and the basic necessities to survive. No more flying over the world, driving nice cars, living in nice houses, eating out, taking vacations, etc.
The simple fact that you even made a statement like that just tells me how blindly you will defend CR and any game he tries to create no matter what he or the project does.
This entire post is irrelevant nonsense in a crowdfund setting "development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy."
Thank you for displaying how irrelevant and quite repulsive your opinions on why Star Citizen needs to be controlled by some profit making overlord though, very insightful.
Typical Orinori. Can’t argue the points made so instead just dismisses the entire argument with a hand wave because you know you can’t argue it. Oh well at least it just shows me you are good for a laugh.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
What does that mean?
It means that if the backers stop believing in the project then they stop funding it and the project ends, they have full control over the projects future.
I didn't read the rest of your post as i assumed that it was unnecessary for a reply.
This concept that backers have FULL control is the very definition of BS.
That argument is BS as well. The rules of the forum and so on do not apply by Reddit and so on, and Reddit has made huge waves of criticism that CIG tackled on topics that were being moderated on the official discussion boards, by many reasons usually due to fights, but the SC Reddit when people are angry then sure make sure there's a massive frontpage thread CIG can't avoid. lol The consequences of a direct confrontation with the backers over something is not something they ever stand ground much on, especially on topics it's well known most backers care little for.
I think the thing gets people like you so angry, is that your opinion is not the opinion of a majority, say the overall opinion of the SC backers on what they think or even care about something.
It's not any full control, but it's a capability to pressure and influence what happens.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
What does that mean?
It means that if the backers stop believing in the project then they stop funding it and the project ends, they have full control over the projects future.
I didn't read the rest of your post as i assumed that it was unnecessary for a reply.
What a load of BS.
Chris Roberts stated a while back, that if funding stopped, they have enough cash to finish one game, then use the money from sales of that game to fund the other game to completion.
Pretty sure it was SQ42 they said they had the cash to finish, and use to fund SC, but it might have been the other way round.
So @Orinori is talking out of their backside, SC backers have no control at all, if they stop funding, it changes nothing according to Chris Roberts.
at some point most of the backers are going to get tired of waiting and broken promises and missed deadlines and the money will slow to a trickle.
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
I’ve never said 90 days. Not sure why you bring up Derek Smart in all this except as a convienant straw man or you think I am Derek Smart in which case you have bigger issues then white knighting for a game.
Have I ever said 3.0 wasn’t a step forward? No I’ve sinply stated where they failed to deliver, much like they have many times in the past. And no backers aren’t happy, at least not all of them. To make a statement like that is to just bury your head in the sand.
Please point out where I said it will end soon. I will give you a hint, I didn’t. I said at some point and that point could be tomorrow or it could be in another 6 years. Also never said I hate CR but you do enjoy putting words into people’s mouths. Try to keep up with the conversation please so I don’t have to repeat myself.
So investors should just keep pouring money down a black hole instead of expecting someone to deliver on all the promises they made? They should just keep tossing money at someone who can’t even prove they can release one game? Delays happen but at some point you cut the person off because they are just full of hot air. You’d make the perfect investor if you believe what you said but at least you won’t have your money for long. I have a project I need help with financially but I’m just going to keep telling you to give me more money so that I can deliver what I oringinally promised you but don’t worry it will happen eventually even though I haven’t actually delivered anything that will reassure you.
If the investors looked at the game and say they already gave 30 million for the project (wildly guessing) and you being CR came up to them and said hey I need another 30 million to finish this game but I promise it will be the best thing ever! They relent because they expect to make 80 million from sales so 20 million profit ain’t bad. 2 years later you come to investors again and say you need another 30 million but this time you promise it’s going to happen and the end user is going to love it! You really think investors are going to give you that money because the end user will love it? They will end up losing money and going broke because you want to make it the best end user experience ever!
How many investors do you think will still be around if they lost money on every single endeveaour because they want the end user to have a great experience? If profit isn’t such a big deal then I’m sure everyone working for CIG, Chris Roberts and family included will be willing to take a bare minimum pay check to cover food, shelter, clothes and the basic necessities to survive. No more flying over the world, driving nice cars, living in nice houses, eating out, taking vacations, etc.
The simple fact that you even made a statement like that just tells me how blindly you will defend CR and any game he tries to create no matter what he or the project does.
This entire post is irrelevant nonsense in a crowdfund setting "development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy."
Thank you for displaying how irrelevant and quite repulsive your opinions on why Star Citizen needs to be controlled by some profit making overlord though, very insightful.
Typical Orinori. Can’t argue the points made so instead just dismisses the entire argument with a hand wave because you know you can’t argue it. Oh well at least it just shows me you are good for a laugh.
Your post was pretty much in full support of my position, there was nothing to argue. typical kefo, too blinded with hatred to follow logic and reason.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
What does that mean? If I can get enough of the backers to support having all the ships painted pink, will they do it? I doubt it. So how much control do the backers really have? Sure they could stop buying ships but then they would lose their perceived advantages when the game finally launches.
This concept that backers have FULL control is the very definition of BS. When backers make a poll on the official forum that CIG doesnt like, it gets locked. An example is when backers did a poll about allowing refunds.
25 percent of backers felt refunds should be available but CIG closed than locked the thread. Now can you honestly say that those 25% of backers had full control of the project? If they had not locked that thread, could that percentage have been higher?
Having glanced at your post now, i can refer you to a reply that already clarifies that earlier -
"backers may influence direction of that vision if deemed a sound decision to make, but individual backers do not hold all power to completely control direction of the vision"
IF DEEMED A SOUND DECISION, backers are not game developers and mostly do not hold the skill set to make correct choices. We are backing Chris Roberts vision, not 10yr old john and his vision. However backers, as an individual or a collective can make their case and after evaluation, if deemed to be a sound decision then things can be altered. Ultimately though if backers are not happy with direction, as a collective they can stop supporting the project and it will end.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
What does that mean? If I can get enough of the backers to support having all the ships painted pink, will they do it? I doubt it. So how much control do the backers really have? Sure they could stop buying ships but then they would lose their perceived advantages when the game finally launches.
This concept that backers have FULL control is the very definition of BS. When backers make a poll on the official forum that CIG doesnt like, it gets locked. An example is when backers did a poll about allowing refunds.
25 percent of backers felt refunds should be available but CIG closed than locked the thread. Now can you honestly say that those 25% of backers had full control of the project? If they had not locked that thread, could that percentage have been higher?
As CIG was giving refunds since 2012 (and still do), there was little point in that thread. 25 % of the backers were asking for something that CIG was already doing.
W.r.t. *** painted pink ***
Well, is orange or red/white ok ?
From Citizen Convention 2017: --> Skins generated with the support of and chosen by the backers.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
What does that mean?
It means that if the backers stop believing in the project then they stop funding it and the project ends, they have full control over the projects future.
I didn't read the rest of your post as i assumed that it was unnecessary for a reply.
What a load of BS.
Chris Roberts stated a while back, that if funding stopped, they have enough cash to finish one game, then use the money from sales of that game to fund the other game to completion.
Pretty sure it was SQ42 they said they had the cash to finish, and use to fund SC, but it might have been the other way round.
So @Orinori is talking out of their backside, SC backers have no control at all, if they stop funding, it changes nothing according to Chris Roberts.
You may have a point randomhuman. Stopping backer funding now probably would not stop the project from reaching MVP, but there would still be consequnces to the projects future as a result and is not something that could be ignored. Perhaps the statement that it would end completely is something that is more a past tense position now.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
"may even influence Chris Roberts direction if he can be convinced "
This is the kind of thing I mean - in the same sentence you state backers have full control, then state they MAY be able to convince CR.
Your first point was simple and reasonable...this second point is a nonsense and comes across to me like you just wanted to "win" the whole argument.
Please try not to conflate collective FINANCIAL CONTROL over the entire project, that project being Chris Roberts vision of the game. With full CONTROL OVER THE VISION, backers may influence direction of that vision if deemed a sound decision to make, but individual backers do not hold all power to completely control direction of the vision like a single investor may. I feel you are being disingenuous in suggesting you can't understand that difference and perhaps intentionally do not want to.
I didn't, and no I wasn't being disingenuous. My point is that you made two conflicting statements (that's definitely how I read it). The first one was an absolute statement "Full control". Full control is full control or it is not. The second was "may influence".
Now you come back to qualify that into: 1. financial vs. vision control 2. Individual vs collective backer influence
But it always sounds stronger (in one's head) to make simple, absolute statements...statements that then bite you in the ass.
Its nothing personal, we all do it, but when you get called out, just admit, restate/requalify and move on. It's not going to make your opinions any less valid in the future, and clinging to the original extreme statement via all kinds of mental gymnastics doesn't make you any more so.
Comments
Backers have a much higher influence on this project even if they are not legal investors. It does have quite a bunch of similarities to one investment.
This project lies on a constant funding dependent on those backers, this is why is of CIGs best interest to keep attending to the overall feedback of such community, not doing so and ever risking direct confrontation, directly harms that income.
That is reality of the SC project, that falls with its dependency on the continuous crowdfund, hence forcefully more sensitive to what their backers want, it's directly mutual benefit. And it shows in how they react to it.
A company like EA does not have such degree of dependency or even proximity, hence why they can afford public outcries that piss off the world.
And because it’s on Wikipedia without a source you will have to believe it.
Have I ever said 3.0 wasn’t a step forward? No I’ve sinply stated where they failed to deliver, much like they have many times in the past. And no backers aren’t happy, at least not all of them. To make a statement like that is to just bury your head in the sand.
Please point out where I said it will end soon. I will give you a hint, I didn’t. I said at some point and that point could be tomorrow or it could be in another 6 years. Also never said I hate CR but you do enjoy putting words into people’s mouths. Try to keep up with the conversation please so I don’t have to repeat myself.
So investors should just keep pouring money down a black hole instead of expecting someone to deliver on all the promises they made? They should just keep tossing money at someone who can’t even prove they can release one game? Delays happen but at some point you cut the person off because they are just full of hot air. You’d make the perfect investor if you believe what you said but at least you won’t have your money for long. I have a project I need help with financially but I’m just going to keep telling you to give me more money so that I can deliver what I oringinally promised you but don’t worry it will happen eventually even though I haven’t actually delivered anything that will reassure you.
If the investors looked at the game and say they already gave 30 million for the project (wildly guessing) and you being CR came up to them and said hey I need another 30 million to finish this game but I promise it will be the best thing ever! They relent because they expect to make 80 million from sales so 20 million profit ain’t bad. 2 years later you come to investors again and say you need another 30 million but this time you promise it’s going to happen and the end user is going to love it! You really think investors are going to give you that money because the end user will love it? They will end up losing money and going broke because you want to make it the best end user experience ever!
How many investors do you think will still be around if they lost money on every single endeveaour because they want the end user to have a great experience? If profit isn’t such a big deal then I’m sure everyone working for CIG, Chris Roberts and family included will be willing to take a bare minimum pay check to cover food, shelter, clothes and the basic necessities to survive. No more flying over the world, driving nice cars, living in nice houses, eating out, taking vacations, etc.
The simple fact that you even made a statement like that just tells me how blindly you will defend CR and any game he tries to create no matter what he or the project does.
Have fun
Have fun
Erillion........check
Orinori........check
I got all 3.....I win.
Thank you for displaying how irrelevant and quite repulsive your opinions on why Star Citizen needs to be controlled by some profit making overlord though, very insightful.
** hands @TalulaRose a cookie **
Have fun
This concept that backers have FULL control is the very definition of BS. When backers make a poll on the official forum that CIG doesnt like, it gets locked. An example is when backers did a poll about allowing refunds.
25 percent of backers felt refunds should be available but CIG closed than locked the thread. Now can you honestly say that those 25% of backers had full control of the project? If they had not locked that thread, could that percentage have been higher?
I didn't read the rest of your post as i assumed that it was unnecessary for a reply.
I think the thing gets people like you so angry, is that your opinion is not the opinion of a majority, say the overall opinion of the SC backers on what they think or even care about something.
It's not any full control, but it's a capability to pressure and influence what happens.
Chris Roberts stated a while back, that if funding stopped, they have enough cash to finish one game, then use the money from sales of that game to fund the other game to completion.
Pretty sure it was SQ42 they said they had the cash to finish, and use to fund SC, but it might have been the other way round.
So @Orinori is talking out of their backside, SC backers have no control at all, if they stop funding, it changes nothing according to Chris Roberts.
"backers may influence direction of that vision if deemed a sound decision to make, but individual backers do not hold all power to completely control direction of the vision"
IF DEEMED A SOUND DECISION, backers are not game developers and mostly do not hold the skill set to make correct choices. We are backing Chris Roberts vision, not 10yr old john and his vision. However backers, as an individual or a collective can make their case and after evaluation, if deemed to be a sound decision then things can be altered. Ultimately though if backers are not happy with direction, as a collective they can stop supporting the project and it will end.
As CIG was giving refunds since 2012 (and still do), there was little point in that thread. 25 % of the backers were asking for something that CIG was already doing.
W.r.t. *** painted pink ***
Well, is orange or red/white ok ?
From Citizen Convention 2017:
--> Skins generated with the support of and chosen by the backers.
Have fun
It has helped Star Citizen a lot.
No sarcasm. Plain truth.
Have fun
Now you come back to qualify that into:
1. financial vs. vision control
2. Individual vs collective backer influence
But it always sounds stronger (in one's head) to make simple, absolute statements...statements that then bite you in the ass.
Its nothing personal, we all do it, but when you get called out, just admit, restate/requalify and move on. It's not going to make your opinions any less valid in the future, and clinging to the original extreme statement via all kinds of mental gymnastics doesn't make you any more so.