As of now? Nope.
Would've made much more sense to simply piss all over the $300 million dollars and then light it on fire.
So I'm guessing still no game yet?
I thought the game was seeing how long this burning train could keep going.
As of now? Nope.
Would've made much more sense to simply piss all over the $300 million dollars and then light it on fire.
Despite there being nothing more than a buggy tech demo (after 6 years or 7 depending on when you start counting), CIG have developed some tools and tech that could find its way into other games in the future.
It might be a loss (Squadron 42 will determine that), but it won't be a complete loss.
Despite there being nothing more than a buggy tech demo (after 6 years or 7 depending on when you start counting), CIG have developed some tools and tech that could find its way into other games in the future.
It might be a loss (Squadron 42 will determine that), but it won't be a complete loss.
That's great for CIG, but tools CIG could license to other games isn't what all SC's backers paid for.
If it took CIG 6 to 7 years just to release an unfinished alpha of the game along with their "tools", it could easily take another 6 to 7 years before the game ever gets completed and given a commercial release.
Also, as @Skel said, I highly doubt SC's backers will be happy to know that their money was pissed away on creating a bunch of tools instead of being used to help build the game as intended.
That's true, but the tech and tools developed by CIG would benefit gamers playing other games. And that tech would not have been developed with someone (CIG) at least trying to create it. The post alludes to the fact that $300 million has been completely wasted. It hasn't. CIG does have some talented developers and they have developed some impressive tech that could definitely make other future games better.
As a backer, this wouldn't necessarily make me happy. But it IS better than CR taking all the money and fleeing to Grand Cayman Island with it.
You mangy son of a #%$^, do you know how long it's been since I lost the game?bro, you just lost.
To me it'd be worse than nothing happening with it. In fact as he would be him taking all the money and fleeing with it. He's taking the money and using it to enrich himself without fulfilling what he was paid to do. This wouldn't be an issue if he fulfilled what people paid for. (note, he still might.. not likely at this point, but it's possible) but using the money for personal gain by making something else that can be licensed and not fulfilling what he was paid to do, is theft. I'm not sure how it's not... unless he fulfills what he was paid for. I've not heard one person who's said they were donating to CIG to do whatever because they think the company is that awesome. Everything I've seen is about CIG creating a game. Without that game, it's just them wasting people's money.
Sadly, according to the article that KMFJD linked to, it's something he's done before when he allegedly siphoned off money from his MS deal on the game studio and used it for making a movie.
well, I'm sure all of that is covered in whatever contract backers "signed" by clicking a little check box when they agreed to give some dude a pile of money for essentially nothing in return.
Honestly, I hope this crashes and burns and backers lose millions. I hope he flees the country with all of that money. Not because people lose money, but that they realize that this ridiculous trend to fund peoples' pet projects and failed businesses with their own money is completely preposterous. This model completely eliminates the market-driven need for competition and incentives for developers and entrepreneurs to back their product with actual work.
well, I'm sure all of that is covered in whatever contract backers "signed" by clicking a little check box when they agreed to give some dude a pile of money for essentially nothing in return.
Honestly, I hope this crashes and burns and backers lose millions. I hope he flees the country with all of that money. Not because people lose money, but that they realize that this ridiculous trend to fund peoples' pet projects and failed businesses with their own money is completely preposterous. This model completely eliminates the market-driven need for competition and incentives for developers and entrepreneurs to back their product with actual work.
pretty much this^.It is. As a backer who has actually read the terms of service (which every backer has to acknowledge and agree to with every transaction), I can tell you that the ONLY right transferred to the backer during the transaction is the right to run CIG's computer code on your personal computer. There is no ownership rights associated with digital assets. This surprises a lot of backers and I would estimate that 80% of SC backers refuse to believe it or accept it (the ostrich head in the sand approach) - they think they're "buying" spaceships. They're not.
I hate to burst your hopes, but backers have already lost millions. That money isn't going to be returned. Ever. And Chris Roberts isn't fleeing the country with all that money. Because it's mostly already spent on development. As the recent Forbes article points out (paraphrasing here): there is nothing fraudulent going on. But this project has been plagued by inefficient and bad management on a galactic scale. It's a pretty accurate conclusion. You might still have your hopes fulfilled with the project crashing and burning. There is still a ton of risk here (bad management being the #1 risk).
I don't really agree with the rest of your post. The best video game I've played in the last couple of years is Bards Tale IV. A completely crowd-funded game that simply would not exist without fans funding its development. Crowd funding has a valid place within the financing spectrum.
I also backed BTIV and enjoyed it thoroughly. I've backed a number of music and video projects, and some non-digital gaming based ones... of the 30 projects I've backed since 2012, the only real sour note is the Equiso Android HDMI Android stick. Obviously the idea itself was sound, but they over-promised and under-delivered (tech wasn't realistically quite there in 2012-2013). But I did get my product in that case, and it kinda/sorta did what it was supposed to.I don't really agree with the rest of your post. The best video game I've played in the last couple of years is Bards Tale IV. A completely crowd-funded game that simply would not exist without fans funding its development. Crowd funding has a valid place within the financing spectrum.
At lot of backers are losing their minds over that article. They should be celebrating it. Yes, there are some really odd things in that article, and digging up personal history/dirt seems out of place for Forbes, but......
The article's conclusion is: Star Citizen isn't a fraud. The games are being made. It's just a project plagued by bad management.
All of that is accurate.
Most of the articles written about SC allude to it being a scam. Here's a major publication flat out saying it isn't.
emotion + money = bad medicine. This is pretty much the only kind of reaction you can honestly expect from the long-time faithful backers at this point. I get it...any kind of (perceived) negative press probably isn't going to be considered rationally.
At lot of backers are losing their minds over that article. They should be celebrating it. Yes, there are some really odd things in that article, and digging up personal history/dirt seems out of place for Forbes, but......
The article's conclusion is: Star Citizen isn't a fraud. The games are being made. It's just a project plagued by bad management.
All of that is accurate.
Most of the articles written about SC allude to it being a scam. Here's a major publication flat out saying it isn't.
the Escapist did a story about it back in 2014-15 ish about some of the horror stories from ex-employees, and cig took them to court over it. most of the coverage about sc in the mainstream press has been about funding totals, this is the first to actually look at how bad it is going. since forbes has a research and legal department, anything they print has to be accurate. the head in the sand/finger in the ears technique of rivethead's defenders of the faith requires that any bad news be able to be attacked/dismissed. forbes applying real world journalism standards to the reporting means it holds up in court, which is harder to attack.Is this the first major publication to really report on it? I would say this would effect any new money getting into this, but I'm still baffled over people sending thousands on a ship so what do I know?