Star Citizen reaches $153 Million Dollars in Funding

Babuinix · June 2017

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

Another Week Another Million

Kefo · June 2017

Babuinix said:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

Another Week Another Million

And still nothing substantial to show for it or SQ42

Cotic · June 2017

Wasn't $65 million enough for the game and its stretch goals. We are fast approaching $100 million over that amount and it is now not enough. Why do fans not find that disconcerting?

Babuinix · June 2017

Seems pretty substancial to me and the hundreds of thousands of backers that keep supporting CiG

sgel · June 2017

2 weeks, 2 years, 2 decades... it's an honest mistake!

Babuinix · June 2017

sgel said:

2 weeks, 2 years, 2 decades... it's an honest mistake!

Forgot the 90 days

Likewise, an honest mistake.

Kefo · June 2017

Babuinix said:

Seems pretty substancial to me and the hundreds of thousands of backers that keep supporting CiG

Lets break it down

Video number the first: Mostly employees talking and some very basic footage....I am underwhelmed if this is proof of substance

Video the second: "footage" of 3.0 which is now pushed back to August and lets face it the video is more then likely bullshot to hype backers into opening their wallets

Video the third: LOL procedural planets....enjoy your 4 moons whenever 3.0 launches and if the moons aren't scaled back because reasons

Video the 4th: Promo video meant to hype fans again. Shows bits and pieces of what you can play which again isn't substantial

Last video: It's a music video of probably years old footage mixed with some new.

for a 153 million dollar project this looks like a very pretty amateur hour.

Babuinix · June 2017

Looks good to me and hundreds of thousands of other gamers.

Vikingir · June 2017

Cotic said:

Wasn't $65 million enough for the game and its stretch goals. We are fast approaching $100 million over that amount and it is now not enough. Why do fans not find that disconcerting?

I can tell you what I think, but the question troubling me is why you and so many others find this disconcerting? It makes perfectly sense to me: The game is under development and pledges goes into further development, for needed ongoing expenses. Nothing strange about that.

The $65 M was where the stretch goals stopped, it doesn't mean there won't be more additions to the game or that it was that amount which was needed to make the game.

Your first question requires some more explaining.

The contents added to the game has changed since then, because backer continued to pledge millions and CIG really had no other choice than to extend the scope. This is an important factor that most people miss - just think if CIG had kept the extra funding and released the original game, what'd happened then? It'd be an outrageous move and backers would rightfully have been outraged and demanded their money back. That was impossible and so CIG decided to do what they always intended to do eventually (after the first public release), to extend the features and contents of the game. Erin Roberts explained this in an interview from CitizenCon 2015.

But your question(s) is really a big discussion which can't be answered fully in a few short paragraphs, because the question is either rethorical (here: formed as a statement, not meant to be answered) or contains so many unspoken conditions that would have to be guessed before answering them, and that is futile.

MaxBacon · June 2017

Isn't this part of the crowdfunding discussion though?

http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/423334/star-citizen-crowdfunding-milestones-discussion#latest

This is business as usual for the crowdfund, perhaps more relevant when it comes to the impact of the next major release in the actual crowdfund.

donger56 · June 2017

Great, they can have the honor of being the most expensive failure in gaming history someday. This train wreck has already cost more than just about any other game made and still has nothing to show beyond a tech demo and some trailers. I don't get how fundraising is seen as success in anything beyond raising money. They just keep making more videos and renaming and numbering the testing to make it look like they are doing something. This game was supposed to be out in 2014 and it sure doesn't look like 2017 is going to be the year we see a finished product either.

Zandog · June 2017

My concerns are more based around the attention this project gets not the project itself.

Star Citizen is fail:
- Think it's a scam? What do you think happens when you keep commenting on it? Whether it's good on bad, publicly and chatter only benefit the game. Derek Smart (this guy's either an idiot or he's being paid by CIG to be the bad guy) helped fund this past weekends sales of a $40 space bike at almost $2,000.000mil. While many whales pumped in more cash, there were many new accounts created and not all were repeat buyers. People who had no clue about the game read his diatribe, looked into the game for themselves and bought into the hype. Stop giving it attention!

I have no investment:
- If you have no investment in the game and think it's doomed to fail yet keep providing material for people to read, it's only helping the project. No exposure is the worst exposure.
You think your spitting doubt into a project that's already completely funded. They don't need your money. That part I believe and should be obvious to anyone with sense. Quit worrying about how OTHER people spend their money.

If you like Star Citizen, good for you. Go gamble your own money. If you're on the fence, sit back and watch the show. IF they release a game, if they keep their promise, they said every ship can be earned in game. If you despise the project, stop talking. You are only helping them get more exposure. If you are in it for the popcorn material (drama and laughs) keep posting.

Kyleran · June 2017

Babuinix said:

Looks good to me and hundreds of thousands of other gamers.

I guess. CU is always sending backers updates on the latest features which have been improved or completed.

Also regularly invites me to alpha test the latest build which I ignore even though my pledge gives me access.

What they don't do is continue to shill for more money and then move the goalposts further out, they've pretty much content locked the game and working on delivery.

If 3.0 comes out and $50M more funding comes in, do the goals move out again?

All well and good to promise to use it on post release development assuming scope (including ships) is clearly locked at this point.

New ships should be (and perhaps are) clearly flagged for post launch delivery.

As I told Mark Jacobs, I really dont care how much he accomplishes week to week, give me a playable beta date of the full feature set planned for delivery.

Still waiting for that from CU as well as most other MMOs in development.

Cotic · June 2017

Vikingir said:

Cotic said:

Wasn't $65 million enough for the game and its stretch goals. We are fast approaching $100 million over that amount and it is now not enough. Why do fans not find that disconcerting?

I can tell you what I think, but the question troubling me is why you and so many others find this disconcerting? It makes perfectly sense to me: The game is under development and pledges goes into further development, for needed ongoing expenses. Nothing strange about that.

The $65 M was where the stretch goals stopped, it doesn't mean there won't be more additions to the game or that it was that amount which was needed to make the game.

Your first question requires some more explaining.

The contents added to the game has changed since then, because backer continued to pledge millions and CIG really had no other choice than to extend the scope. This is an important factor that most people miss - just think if CIG had kept the extra funding and released the original game, what'd happened then? It'd be an outrageous move and backers would rightfully have been outraged and demanded their money back. That was impossible and so CIG decided to do what they always intended to do eventually (after the first public release), to extend the features and contents of the game. Erin Roberts explained this in an interview from CitizenCon 2015.

But your question(s) is really a big discussion which can't be answered fully in a few short paragraphs, because the question is either rethorical (here: formed as a statement, not meant to be answered) or contains so many unspoken conditions that would have to be guessed before answering them, and that is futile.

Hey long time no see.

Do you not think that the $18,000 or more that you have spent on this game might have something to do with your viewpoint?

What I find disconcerting, and I say this as a long term backer, is that if one figure was enough for the fidelity that were aiming for and now with almost triple that amount it doesn't appear to anywhere near enough. How do you let your project get so out of control that an additional $100+ million cannot fix it. How much do they anticipate this costing to reach 100 systems and the full feature set?

FlyByKnight · June 2017

I hate when people reference the amount of people who have fell for something as a point of legitimacy.

Jimmy Jones cult had a bunch of followers too. That doesn't make the purple kool-aid any less cyanide.

This isn't a crowdfunded game IMO, it's a cult fleecing game.

MaxBacon · June 2017

Kyleran said:
If 3.0 comes out and $50M more funding comes in, do the goals move out again?

You check the Global Schedule for the project's the direction past 3.0. The scope the game has, what they are working now, is all stuff they talked about before part of the many design talks that existed since then.

MaxBacon · June 2017

FlyByKnight said:

I hate when people reference the amount of people who have fell for something as a point of legitimacy.

Jimmy Jones cult had a bunch of followers too. That doesn't make the purple kool-aid any less cyanide.

This isn't a crowdfunded game IMO, it's a cult fleecing game.

Perhaps people wouldn't be pointing so often how much money is the game crowdfunding if there weren't people fear mongering for the past 3 years that the project is out of money and about to collapse.

CrazKanuk · June 2017

FlyByKnight said:

I hate when people reference the amount of people who have fell for something as a point of legitimacy.

Jimmy Jones cult had a bunch of followers too. That doesn't make the purple kool-aid any less cyanide.

This isn't a crowdfunded game IMO, it's a cult fleecing game.

Aaaaaaaaaand someone gave you an insightful......... Just sayin' people who live in Jonestown shouldn't throw Jones'

Babuinix · June 2017

If people are not prepared to wait (manage their expectations) or understand what it takes to make games they should stay away from crowdfunding/kick-starter's altogether.

If all you are interested in is playing a new game there's 4 things you would wan't to know:

1) Is it fun?

2) Can I play/run it on my console/pc?

4) When can I play it?

3) How much will it cost me?

That's about it.

You don't need to keep polluting every forum or message board with the ad nauseum "Are we there yet" because that's not going to help your case.

Wait for release and reviews then judge it for yourself.

gervaise1 · June 2017

donger56 said:

Great, they can have the honor of being the most expensive failure in gaming history someday. This train wreck has already cost more than just about any other game made and still has nothing to show beyond a tech demo and some trailers. I don't get how fundraising is seen as success in anything beyond raising money. They just keep making more videos and renaming and numbering the testing to make it look like they are doing something. This game was supposed to be out in 2014 and it sure doesn't look like 2017 is going to be the year we see a finished product either.

Can you elaborate on how much SC has cost to date since you seem to know? Or are you assuming that money raised = money spent? And on that basis a lot of games must have "cost" a lot more.

Kefo · June 2017

Vikingir said:

Cotic said:

Wasn't $65 million enough for the game and its stretch goals. We are fast approaching $100 million over that amount and it is now not enough. Why do fans not find that disconcerting?

I can tell you what I think, but the question troubling me is why you and so many others find this disconcerting? It makes perfectly sense to me: The game is under development and pledges goes into further development, for needed ongoing expenses. Nothing strange about that.

The $65 M was where the stretch goals stopped, it doesn't mean there won't be more additions to the game or that it was that amount which was needed to make the game.

Your first question requires some more explaining.

The contents added to the game has changed since then, because backer continued to pledge millions and CIG really had no other choice than to extend the scope. This is an important factor that most people miss - just think if CIG had kept the extra funding and released the original game, what'd happened then? It'd be an outrageous move and backers would rightfully have been outraged and demanded their money back. That was impossible and so CIG decided to do what they always intended to do eventually (after the first public release), to extend the features and contents of the game. Erin Roberts explained this in an interview from CitizenCon 2015.

But your question(s) is really a big discussion which can't be answered fully in a few short paragraphs, because the question is either rethorical (here: formed as a statement, not meant to be answered) or contains so many unspoken conditions that would have to be guessed before answering them, and that is futile.

Why is it disconcerting? Because at 65 million Chris stopped stretch goals and I believe they said they had enough to complete the game (I could be remembering this wrong so don't quote me). Fast forward to over 100 million and CR makes a statement that they only have enough to finish SQ42 if funding dries up but the sales from the game will allow them to finish SC.

It should strike you as very odd that even though they have gone way past their stretch goal funding so it should be only for game dev and not new features or promises but yet they don't actually have enough to finish both games and they are relying on sales of a game that many have already bought and could have tepid sales

Kefo · June 2017

Zandog said:

My concerns are more based around the attention this project gets not the project itself.

Star Citizen is fail:
- Think it's a scam? What do you think happens when you keep commenting on it? Whether it's good on bad, publicly and chatter only benefit the game. Derek Smart (this guy's either an idiot or he's being paid by CIG to be the bad guy) helped fund this past weekends sales of a $40 space bike at almost $2,000.000mil. While many whales pumped in more cash, there were many new accounts created and not all were repeat buyers. People who had no clue about the game read his diatribe, looked into the game for themselves and bought into the hype. Stop giving it attention!

I have no investment:
- If you have no investment in the game and think it's doomed to fail yet keep providing material for people to read, it's only helping the project. No exposure is the worst exposure.
You think your spitting doubt into a project that's already completely funded. They don't need your money. That part I believe and should be obvious to anyone with sense. Quit worrying about how OTHER people spend their money.

If you like Star Citizen, good for you. Go gamble your own money. If you're on the fence, sit back and watch the show. IF they release a game, if they keep their promise, they said every ship can be earned in game. If you despise the project, stop talking. You are only helping them get more exposure. If you are in it for the popcorn material (drama and laughs) keep posting.

So you're basically telling everyone to shut up unless you have something nice to say about the game then it's fine.

Ill make one comment Quit worrying about how OTHER people spend their time posting their opinions on a game forum.

Zandog · June 2017

Kefo said:

Zandog said:

My concerns are more based around the attention this project gets not the project itself.

Star Citizen is fail:
- Think it's a scam? What do you think happens when you keep commenting on it? Whether it's good on bad, publicly and chatter only benefit the game. Derek Smart (this guy's either an idiot or he's being paid by CIG to be the bad guy) helped fund this past weekends sales of a $40 space bike at almost $2,000.000mil. While many whales pumped in more cash, there were many new accounts created and not all were repeat buyers. People who had no clue about the game read his diatribe, looked into the game for themselves and bought into the hype. Stop giving it attention!

I have no investment:
- If you have no investment in the game and think it's doomed to fail yet keep providing material for people to read, it's only helping the project. No exposure is the worst exposure.
You think your spitting doubt into a project that's already completely funded. They don't need your money. That part I believe and should be obvious to anyone with sense. Quit worrying about how OTHER people spend their money.

If you like Star Citizen, good for you. Go gamble your own money. If you're on the fence, sit back and watch the show. IF they release a game, if they keep their promise, they said every ship can be earned in game. If you despise the project, stop talking. You are only helping them get more exposure. If you are in it for the popcorn material (drama and laughs) keep posting.

So you're basically telling everyone to shut up unless you have something nice to say about the game then it's fine.

Ill make one comment Quit worrying about how OTHER people spend their time posting their opinions on a game forum.

Then expect people to continue pumping money into the game whether or not your are for or against it.

Kefo · June 2017

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Zandog said:

My concerns are more based around the attention this project gets not the project itself.

Star Citizen is fail:
- Think it's a scam? What do you think happens when you keep commenting on it? Whether it's good on bad, publicly and chatter only benefit the game. Derek Smart (this guy's either an idiot or he's being paid by CIG to be the bad guy) helped fund this past weekends sales of a $40 space bike at almost $2,000.000mil. While many whales pumped in more cash, there were many new accounts created and not all were repeat buyers. People who had no clue about the game read his diatribe, looked into the game for themselves and bought into the hype. Stop giving it attention!

I have no investment:
- If you have no investment in the game and think it's doomed to fail yet keep providing material for people to read, it's only helping the project. No exposure is the worst exposure.
You think your spitting doubt into a project that's already completely funded. They don't need your money. That part I believe and should be obvious to anyone with sense. Quit worrying about how OTHER people spend their money.

If you like Star Citizen, good for you. Go gamble your own money. If you're on the fence, sit back and watch the show. IF they release a game, if they keep their promise, they said every ship can be earned in game. If you despise the project, stop talking. You are only helping them get more exposure. If you are in it for the popcorn material (drama and laughs) keep posting.

So you're basically telling everyone to shut up unless you have something nice to say about the game then it's fine.

Ill make one comment Quit worrying about how OTHER people spend their time posting their opinions on a game forum.

Then expect people to continue pumping money into the game whether or not your are for or against it.

I never expected people to stop, you just incorrectly assumed I give a shit how people spend their money. I will be here laughing my ass off though if the game crashes and burns and the nerd tears are flowing copiously

Vikingir · June 2017

Cotic said:

Vikingir said:

Cotic said:

Wasn't $65 million enough for the game and its stretch goals. We are fast approaching $100 million over that amount and it is now not enough. Why do fans not find that disconcerting?

I can tell you what I think, but the question troubling me is why you and so many others find this disconcerting? It makes perfectly sense to me: The game is under development and pledges goes into further development, for needed ongoing expenses. Nothing strange about that.

The $65 M was where the stretch goals stopped, it doesn't mean there won't be more additions to the game or that it was that amount which was needed to make the game.

Your first question requires some more explaining.

The contents added to the game has changed since then, because backer continued to pledge millions and CIG really had no other choice than to extend the scope. This is an important factor that most people miss - just think if CIG had kept the extra funding and released the original game, what'd happened then? It'd be an outrageous move and backers would rightfully have been outraged and demanded their money back. That was impossible and so CIG decided to do what they always intended to do eventually (after the first public release), to extend the features and contents of the game. Erin Roberts explained this in an interview from CitizenCon 2015.

But your question(s) is really a big discussion which can't be answered fully in a few short paragraphs, because the question is either rethorical (here: formed as a statement, not meant to be answered) or contains so many unspoken conditions that would have to be guessed before answering them, and that is futile.

Do you not think that the $18,000 or more that you have spent on this game might have something to do with your viewpoint?

What I find disconcerting, and I say this as a long term backer, is that if one figure was enough for the fidelity that were aiming for and now with almost triple that amount it doesn't appear to anywhere near enough. How do you let your project get so out of control that an additional $100+ million cannot fix it. How much do they anticipate this costing to reach 100 systems and the full feature set?

Firstly, what amount I have pledged is irrelevant and your guess is based loosly on you've heard from others. What is relevant is that I'm a (long term) backer, just like you. We're both "invested" in the game, although with different faith and pledge levels in the project. Yes, I strongly believe in this game project and no, I don't regret any pledge I've done.

To answer your questions in the last paragraph, I refer to my original reply to you above, where I explain why they need additional funds. If you need a specification of ongoing expenses from me, it should suffice to mention salaries for 400+ employees, which is somewhere north of $30M per year in my estimate. I don't agree with you that development spending it's out of control, besides we don't know how much of the current pledge amount has been used yet. As for your last question, I don't know and I don't want to speculate. The game is ready when Chris Roberts is satisfied with it enough to release it. I want him to make the game of his dreams, since that has so far shown also what I dream of.

Kefo · June 2017

Vikingir said:

Cotic said:

Vikingir said:

Cotic said:

Wasn't $65 million enough for the game and its stretch goals. We are fast approaching $100 million over that amount and it is now not enough. Why do fans not find that disconcerting?

I can tell you what I think, but the question troubling me is why you and so many others find this disconcerting? It makes perfectly sense to me: The game is under development and pledges goes into further development, for needed ongoing expenses. Nothing strange about that.

The $65 M was where the stretch goals stopped, it doesn't mean there won't be more additions to the game or that it was that amount which was needed to make the game.

Your first question requires some more explaining.

The contents added to the game has changed since then, because backer continued to pledge millions and CIG really had no other choice than to extend the scope. This is an important factor that most people miss - just think if CIG had kept the extra funding and released the original game, what'd happened then? It'd be an outrageous move and backers would rightfully have been outraged and demanded their money back. That was impossible and so CIG decided to do what they always intended to do eventually (after the first public release), to extend the features and contents of the game. Erin Roberts explained this in an interview from CitizenCon 2015.

But your question(s) is really a big discussion which can't be answered fully in a few short paragraphs, because the question is either rethorical (here: formed as a statement, not meant to be answered) or contains so many unspoken conditions that would have to be guessed before answering them, and that is futile.

Do you not think that the $18,000 or more that you have spent on this game might have something to do with your viewpoint?

What I find disconcerting, and I say this as a long term backer, is that if one figure was enough for the fidelity that were aiming for and now with almost triple that amount it doesn't appear to anywhere near enough. How do you let your project get so out of control that an additional $100+ million cannot fix it. How much do they anticipate this costing to reach 100 systems and the full feature set?

Firstly, what amount I have pledged is irrelevant and your guess is based loosly on you've heard from others. What is relevant is that I'm a (long term) backer, just like you. We're both "invested" in the game, although with different faith and pledge levels in the project. Yes, I strongly believe in this game project and no, I don't regret any pledge I've done.

To answer your questions in the last paragraph, I refer to my original reply to you above, where I explain why they need additional funds. If you need a specification of ongoing expenses from me, it should suffice to mention salaries for 400+ employees, which is somewhere north of $30M per year in my estimate. I don't agree with you that development spending it's out of control, besides we don't know how much of the current pledge amount has been used yet. As for your last question, I don't know and I don't want to speculate. The game is ready when Chris Roberts is satisfied with it enough to release it. I want him to make the game of his dreams, since that has so far shown also what I dream of.

So what happens if he somehow runs out of money before he feels it's ready? Will it be another freelancer or will he just release the buggy mess and call it a day?

Howdy, Stranger!

Star Citizen reaches $153 Million Dollars in Funding

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Star Citizen reaches $153 Million Dollars in Funding

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV