CIG wants $20 for the Citizencon livestream

[Shadow Reaper]

Many great points here, and certainly there's no case to be made CIG is godlike in its ability to cope. I would like to address just one of the excellent points above however. Where Frad writes:

"How many times do they make changes and only inform the community after the fact"? I think it is important to note the proper place of community involvement.

It is objectively true that a huge percent of the supporters actually feel their opinions are so important they ought to be consulted as to what CIG will do next. They're wrong. While CIG should be and appears to try to be aware of the interests of the fans, bad feedback is worse than no feedback, and there is no onus upon CR to wade through every interest anyone might have. Fact is, to lead (as opposed to manage--people are confusing the two here) you form a vision, identify goals, create a plan to meet them and then struggle through the barriers to meeting those goals. That process does involve keeping tabs on the stated interest of the fans, but CIG should NOT be asking people what they want past very specific sub-projects like Next Great Starship. You understand, if you ask people what they want, any 9 people will have 10 opinions, and then whenever you make an executive decision so you can move forward, 9/10 of the folks will be upset you didn't do what they wanted. That does not result in good leadership.

There therefore needs to be a huge distinction between a running sensitivity to what the fans want, and what the vision requires. That is a hard balance to keep, but I am always impressed CR does such a good job. All in all, we have very little to complain about.

Except yeah, where is that Carrack?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

...Where Frad writes:

"How many times do they make changes and only inform the community after the fact"? I think it is important to note the proper place of community involvement.

It is objectively true that a huge percent of the supporters actually feel their opinions are so important they ought to be consulted as to what CIG will do next. They're wrong....

I don't deny the above, however there is a difference between actioning a plan and then being reactionary to feedback, and pre-planning something, letting us know how it's going to happen, taking or not taking feedback into account and then doing it. Just dumping the change on us without warning leads to problems that make plans, no matter how well thought out before hand, look spur of the moment...

To use this livestream example as a case in point, the way I witnessed the info come out was:

1) Digital tickets went on sale with the promise that all footage would be free on Youtube "eventually".

2) Timescale for footage going on Youtube refined to 3 days (If pre-planned and pre-warned we would have known about this and not had to ask what "eventually" meant)

3) Timescale for Keynote Speech to go on to Youtube refined to same-day but not live. (If pre-planned and pre-warned we would have known about this and not had to ask - but it still didn't take into account time-zones across the world and what constituted "same-day")

4) Concierge and Subscribers informed that they would get freeview on all streams. Too late some had already bought digital tickets! (If pre-planned and pre-warned people who could already view free would not have bought tickets they didn't need)

5) Keynote Speech made freeview to any backer with an account. (This appears to have been reactionary to the backlash as change to original plan)

6) Pay to view live scrapped and stream plan scaled back to two stages. (This appears to have been reactionary to the backlash as change to original plan)

Points 1, 2, 3 and especially point 4 could have been avoided by calling out the plan ahead of time, and then points 5 and 6 may not have had to have happened. They may have planned the livestream meticulously for weeks, but without telling us and then dribbling out the salient points after the tickets were on sale it just looks like an afterthought that hadn't taken the time to consider the complexities of charging for Stream Viewing.

Of the six points above only two had anything to do with backer opinion and those were created by the previous four - basically, everything in this example was to do with or was created by what information was released when and only minimally with backer opinions.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Can't argue with any of that. You're right. CR can do better, and I'm sure he'll try.

But hey, we're talking about whether a fan waits a day or three or five to see the stuff for free on YouTube. This is not the crisis type situation it was portrayed as. I think honestly, it is more a result of the standard Millennial sense of entitlement than anything CR could have avoided.

Sometimes it just makes me want to scream how much Millennials act like spoiled brats. My God, what were those stupid Boomers thinking when they failed to take their kids to church, let them cheat at board games, and argued with their teachers to get them better grades and advanced placement? We're in a frigging nightmare generation.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

...we're talking about whether a fan waits a day or three or five to see the stuff for free on YouTube. This is not the crisis type situation it was portrayed as. I think honestly, it is more a result of the standard Millennial sense of entitlement than anything CR could have avoided.

Sometimes it just makes me want to scream how much Millennials act like spoiled brats. My God, what were those stupid Boomers thinking when they failed to take their kids to church, let them cheat at board games, and argued with their teachers to get them better grades and advanced placement? We're in a frigging nightmare generation.

I disagree it is purely to do with Millennials. They may have had their part to play, but consider these points:

One of the keystones of this whole crowdfunded project was to be as transparent as possible. Giving details to backers who pay and withholding it from backers who won't, no matter for how short an amount of time, is not being transparent. Subscribers, for example, get deeper information in the subscriber section, not the only information.

Another keystone of this whole crowdfunded project was No Publisher = No Publisher Dick Moves. No pushing the game out before its ready, not downsizing the project to maximise investor returns, no loot boxes. Taking a leaf directly from the book of a publisher? Thats using a Publisher Dick Move... Picking to abandon the Publisher Dick Moves that cause shit games but keeping the Publisher Dick Moves that make money is an ugly slope.

Obviously it's not the case that they were doing it to make bank... but it looked that way to some who had heavily bought into the No Publisher = No Publisher Dick Moves and Transparency keystones of the project. I would hope they'll look at what they do with that in mind in the future - Yeah some people won't mind what they do, but some believed in the project only because of those points, that this project was another way. Thats not entitlement, its the point of the entire crowdfunder.

Does having the above view make me a Millennial? ;)

 

[Ploeperpengel]

Can't argue with any of that. You're right. CR can do better, and I'm sure he'll try.

But hey, we're talking about whether a fan waits a day or three or five to see the stuff for free on YouTube. This is not the crisis type situation it was portrayed as. I think honestly, it is more a result of the standard Millennial sense of entitlement than anything CR could have avoided.

Sometimes it just makes me want to scream how much Millennials act like spoiled brats. My God, what were those stupid Boomers thinking when they failed to take their kids to church, let them cheat at board games, and argued with their teachers to get them better grades and advanced placement? We're in a frigging nightmare generation.

I concur except for the church part. That would just have produced even more spoiled brats who on top of their supposed entitlement also think they are on a holy mission of self rightiousness. We got enough of those...

Yeah but a little more regime not only in terms of diet could have helped.

 

[Ploeperpengel]

I disagree it is purely to do with Millennials. They may have had their part to play, but consider these points:

One of the keystones of this whole crowdfunded project was to be as transparent as possible. Giving details to backers who pay and withholding it from backers who won't, no matter for how short an amount of time, is not being transparent. Subscribers, for example, get deeper information in the subscriber section, not the only information.

Another keystone of this whole crowdfunded project was No Publisher = No Publisher Dick Moves. No pushing the game out before its ready, not downsizing the project to maximise investor returns, no loot boxes. Taking a leaf directly from the book of a publisher? Thats using a Publisher Dick Move... Picking to abandon the Publisher Dick Moves that cause shit games but keeping the Publisher Dick Moves that make money is an ugly slope.

Obviously it's not the case that they were doing it to make bank... but it looked that way to some who had heavily bought into the No Publisher = No Publisher Dick Moves and Transparency keystones of the project. I would hope they'll look at what they do with that in mind in the future - Yeah some people won't mind what they do, but some believed in the project only because of those points, that this project was another way.

Does having the above view make me a Millennial?

No just makes you a little naive for hoping it could be real (the no dick moves part). There's just no way they can put up a project like this and try to play totally nice on a capitalist market. They might not have to obey to a publisher's demands but they still have to compete with other companies for the talent which requires attractive salary which requires alot of money. So yeah consider the possibility the project might already be dead if they hadn't lied to the community about the true state of the project now and then. That doesn't justify everything. They certainly failed to keep a proper balance between the ideal and real several times already. Haven't you been the guy who quoted something like "at least (concerning marketing) we know where they are not overspending" or do I have someone else in mind? Regardless it 's true. Their Marketing guys are as retarded as everyone elses but probably too few to balance each other out...

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

...consider the possibility the project might already be dead if they hadn't lied to the community about the true state of the project now and then...

Care to substantiate that claim? ;-)

Haven't you been the guy who quoted something like "at least (concerning marketing) we know where they are not overspending" or do I have someone else in mind?

Indeed that was me, alas what is said in jest can sometimes have the bitterest grain of truth within... although I can't substantiate whether thats true or not :slight_smile:

 

[Shadow Reaper]

One of the keystones of this whole crowdfunded project was to be as transparent as possible. Giving details to backers who pay and withholding it from backers who won't, no matter for how short an amount of time, is not being transparent.

I will respectfully disagree. Live access is a nice gift for those who choose to pay, but there is nothing there you can't get for free within a couple days. Transparency has no logical connection with urgency that I can see.

What we should be focused on is the fact CIG is paying a professional vid company six figures in order to produce vids worth watching, and as one who gets a huge amount of his intel from such vids, I'm thrilled.

I turn off 5 out of every 6 vids I view because the people making them did not value my time. I'm thrilled CIG is going to pay to have a better result. It will likely be worth the wait for a better use of our time. OTOH, if you go to the thing live, you probably will never bother with the benefit of more highly optimized time and professional production.

 

[Ploeperpengel]

Care to substantiate that claim? ;-)


Indeed that was me, alas what is said in jest can sometimes have the bitterest grain of truth within... although I can't substantiate whether thats true or not :slight_smile:

Hah great I can trust my memory even if drunk. So about the first point. I don't intent to pick certain points in the developement pipeline to say that was when they screwed up the most. I'm sure there are other more consistent bystanders of the developement process more qualified to pinpoint the exact moments in history when the community felt betrayed the most. Let me just say from a marketing perpective (and as much they screwed up community communication in the past they didn't yet fail to deliver revenue - whether in spite or because of marketing is allways hard to judge) - rephrasing - so from a marketing perspective it's just almost allways a bad idea to admit to have screwed up something even though you know for sure you did. Poeple might celebrate your honesty once or twice but they will silently withdraw their support if that continues. Gamedevelopement is, however, a path of many trials and errors unless it's a proven concept which this isn't. Quite frankly the only way to be totally honest with a backer community is probably having a product very late in developement even if you label it early access and then sort of start crowdfunding for the last mile if sure you can fix the flaws in the foreseeable future because of all the entitled poeple out there who's money you require. There simply was no way to generate enough hype and money flow without overselling what they had. Hell, they still mostly don't have much more than a Jpeg to generate income! I strongly believe this project would have been dead already if they had admitted failure each and ervery time they commited one - and they made mistakes for sure (the outsourced first iteration of star marine just to name one).

Most poeple are not patient. They just want things and soon(TM) - that's what opens poeple's purses. If any thought enters that process that isn't twisted enough by desire to justify the purchase it means less money for developement. And regardless how much I hate CIG marketing - it works - probably why I'm here. Admiting to failure is the worst you could do to developement money influx because even if such honest statements reach our minds and we consciously appreciate the offered respect given to us backers such displayed honesty seems to suggest those statements will utterly fail to seduce us to give in to our buying impulse once we spot a new shiny ship concept.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Does having the above view make me a Millennial? ;)

No! And FYI, I have lots of friends who are Millennials. I date Millennials and hope one day to marry one, and have way too many kids. However, I also know they're causing great consternation with the things that make them so unique. I know very experienced, very adroit people of position who hire and fire regularly, who have all decided they will not hire any more Millennials, because they are so much trouble.

I think this is a great analysis. Notice, we don't get to blame the Millennials themselves. It's really the Boomers fault, and I'm a Boomer.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hER0Qp6QJNU&t=5s

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

[snip] I don't intent to pick certain points in the developement pipeline to say that was when they screwed up the most. I'm sure there are other more consistent bystanders of the developement process more qualified to pinpoint the exact moments in history when the community felt betrayed the most. [snip] Quite frankly the only way to be totally honest with a backer community is probably having a product very late in developement even if you label it early access and then sort of start crowdfunding for the last mile if sure you can fix the flaws in the foreseeable future because of all the entitled poeple out there who's money you require. There simply was no way to generate enough hype and money flow without overselling what they had. Hell, they still mostly don't have much more than a Jpeg to generate income! I strongly believe this project would have been dead already if they had admitted failure each and ervery time they commited one - and they made mistakes for sure (the outsourced first iteration of star marine just to name one). [snip]

Ahh, now I don't deny there have been a great many changes of plans and things like the Cutlass that many backers were wow'd by and drove them to buy into the project with that first pledge, which may have then caused feelings of 'betrayal' when they changed... although every backer has ticked the box that says we understand it is Alpha and subject to change. I cant deny there have definitely been a few 'screw ups' too but you said "lied" - An accusation of lying is a statement that says there was an intention to mislead, usually to gain, with a purposeful deception...

Can you - or anyone - provide proof that there was an intention to steer the backers wrong, mislead, deceive and gain from telling lies? I have asked that question many times and have not as yet had one response that isn't much more than opinion, and opinion can't usually be substantiated.

Long and short of my point - I believe when something has been stated in the past, they truly believed that that was to be the case. Be it Devs, Marketing or Chris Roberts himself, I think they believed what they said, in some cases sadly up to the very day it changed.

Misplaced good intentions perhaps (apparently the road to hell is paved with them), but I don't think there have been any lies.

 

[Bambooza]

No! And FYI, I have lots of friends who are Millennials. I date Millennials and hope one day to marry one, and have way too many kids. However, I also know they're causing great consternation with the things that make them so unique. I know very experienced, very adroit people of position who hire and fire regularly, who have all decided they will not hire any more Millennials, because they are so much trouble.

I think this is a great analysis. Notice, we don't get to blame the Millennials themselves. It's really the Boomers fault, and I'm a Boomer.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hER0Qp6QJNU&t=5s

Wait you're a Boomer who dates Millennials... Nice.

As for the blame or not to blame there does reach a point were the indivigual needs to own their current situation and take responsibility and not blame it on past circumstances. While I agree they as a generation were dealt a terrible hand, what they do with it as adults is on them and not anyone else.

 

[Crymsan]

I think Chris Roberts wanting to spend loads of money on a video is what I should expect. Is the game in a current state to make that worthwhile absolutely not. If and when he gets the game going to be more than just nice to look at then yeah he can gloss up the advertising. Late on development as always.

 

[Ploeperpengel]

Ahh, now I don't deny there have been a great many changes of plans and things like the Cutlass that many backers were wow'd by and drove them to buy into the project with that first pledge, which may have then caused feelings of 'betrayal' when they changed... although every backer has ticked the box that says we understand it is Alpha and subject to change. I cant deny there have definitely been a few 'screw ups' too but you said "lied" - An accusation of lying is a statement that says there was an intention to mislead, usually to gain, with a purposeful deception...

Can you - or anyone - provide proof that there was an intention to steer the backers wrong, mislead, deceive and gain from telling lies? I have asked that question many times and have not as yet had one response that isn't much more than opinion, and opinion can't usually be substantiated.

Long and short of my point - I believe when something has been stated in the past, they truly believed that that was to be the case. Be it Devs, Marketing or Chris Roberts himself, I think they believed what they said, in some cases sadly up to the very day it changed.

Misplaced good intentions perhaps (apparently the road to hell is paved with them), but I don't think there have been any lies.

I for one think they intentionally held back and suppressed internal concernes at least in order to generate hype for SQ42 supposed release in 2017 for one. Either that or they are totally incompetent and that would be worse. Any corporation structure makes it easy to lie for anyone involved. You just stick to the "official knowledge". Internal and external communication of a corporation is allways quite different. It just works that way. And I'm not on a mission to bring them to justice so I really don't bother to provide proof. Don't need to. It's just corporate 'nature' and I experience it every day. Why should CIG be that different?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I for one think ... so I really don't bother to provide proof ... Don't need to.

If you are going to make accusations about something/someone, you need to base it on something solid. Saying "X happened so I think this" is your opinion. You are totally entitled to it, however please read the below post:

https://testsquadron.com/threads/video-montoya-rips-sid-alpha-a-new-one.13561/#post-256516

So continuing from that post:

"X has happened/is happening" yes, it did/is, but then unsubstantiated opinion is then put forward: "So that means Y"

"Hype for S42 happened in 2017" [correct that did happen] "Which I thought was run-up to game launch, but then nothing has happened with S42" [you may have thought that, but no one actually said it was run up to game launch - we did get a long game-play clip where they rescued that Advocacy Agent so it may have been somewhat related to that?] "and thats why CIG are a pile of liars" [Uh... that escalated quickly... Substantiate this claim, please.]

Without being able to substantiate your claim you have nothing but an opinion. As said, you are totally entitled to it, and you may be right. But there is every possibility you may also be very very wrong.

Perhaps - I cannot recall exactly which game it was, I think it was one of The Sims games, but they had a major setback when their development server died and they lost a huge chunk of their work developed to that point. Wiped it out. That might have happened.
Perhaps - The UK government where the game is being developed may have asked for another two years to be tacked on to the end for tax reasons.
Perhaps - Espionage may have had half of the game stolen
Perhaps - You may have personally misinterpreted what that hype push in 2017 was actually for.
Perhaps - Maybe they got wind of the CryTech lawsuit and had to stop the game going live as if it is still in development and not released it is harder to claim infringement on things like the CryTech logo having to be on it (If there have been delays, thats what I personally think was most likely to have caused them, The Cry Tech lawsuit would have been a lot more serious if SC or S42 had been released by that point... but then thats just my unsubstantiated opinion)...

Your opinion is just one of multiple alternate possibilities as to what may have occurred. Liars? Perhaps. Unlucky? Just as possible. Legally stuck between a rock and a hard place? Potentially.

You don't need to substantiate? Well you don't need to let your opinion make you feel bad, either :slight_smile:

 

[Ploeperpengel]

If you are going to make accusations about something/someone, you need to base it on something solid. Saying "X happened so I think this" is your opinion. You are totally entitled to it, however please read the below post:

https://testsquadron.com/threads/video-montoya-rips-sid-alpha-a-new-one.13561/#post-256516

So continuing from that post:

"X has happened/is happening" yes, it did/is, but then unsubstantiated opinion is then put forward: "So that means Y"

"Hype for S42 happened in 2017" [correct that did happen] "Which I thought was run-up to game launch, but then nothing has happened with S42" [you may have thought that, but no one actually said it was run up to game launch - we did get a long game-play clip where they rescued that Advocacy Agent so it may have been somewhat related to that?] "and thats why CIG are a pile of liars" [Uh... that escalated quickly... Substantiate this claim, please.]

Without being able to substantiate your claim you have nothing but an opinion. As said, you are totally entitled to it, and you may be right. But there is every possibility you may also be very very wrong.

I cannot recall exactly which game it was, I think it was one of The Sims games, but they had a major setback when their development server died and they lost a huge chunk of their work developed to that point. Wiped it out. That might have happened. You may have personally misinterpreted what that hype push in 2017, the UK government where the game is being developed may have asked for another two years to be tacked on to the end for tax reasons, espionage may have had half of the game stolen, or maybe they got wind of the CryTech lawsuit and had to stop the game going live as if it is still in development and not released it is harder to claim infringement on things like the CryTech logo having to be on it (If there have been delays, thats what I personally think was most likely to have caused them - The Cry Tech lawsuit would have been a lot more serious if SC or S42 had been released by that point... but then thats just my unsubstantiated opinion)...

Your opinion is just one of multiple alternate possibilities as to what may have occurred. Liars? Perhaps. Unlucky? Just as possible. Legally stuck between a rock and a hard place? Potentially.

You don't need to substantiate? Well you don't need to let your opinion make you feel bad, either :slight_smile:

I'll keep it short (edit: I lied). You're are wrong. You seem to think within a very restricted dualism (edit: even though you reflect on it your actual thesis is strongly biased as I interprete it towards the following): A statement about something is either a fact (which would require proof) or it is just an opinion (and entirely subjective or 'unsubstantiated'). But there are different kinds of opinions (and as we learned recently again from the american president there's also different kinds of facts :joy: - he's actually right - but just not as he meant it):

There are opinions that are purely subjective opinions like I like blue and you like red and each one of us thinks his preferred colour is the better one. And there are more or less substantiated opinions. Which are based on plausibility and each of us may use in everyday life to postulate claims about reality because in reality you only ever can proof very little up to a point of 100% assuredness and if you wouldn't be allowed to make claims based on plausibility you wouldn't possibly be allowed to make claims about anything at all - just maybe think about the theory of relativity and quantum theory for a moment which I don't know much about but read about just enough to "know" they contradict each other and still both are proven to be true - within their own system sort of. So basically even the most foundational theories of modern science are at last probably to be seen as an opinion - even though a well substantiated one with a considerable rate of plausibilty. Because otherwise, it wouldn't be science if it weren't just a theory which could be proven wrong anytime by a better one.

Now I claim to have given a very plausible opinion based on well known everyday experience of living inside corporate culture and the implausibility that professionals (like CIG are) would just know a couple of days before an actual announced release of SQ42 within a certain year that they would not only have to delay this release a couple of weeks or months but several years. You could call that a theory based on plausibility or a substantiated opinion that they withheld some truth from the community until the very last point when they no longer couldn't.

And so far you don't seem to give a better explanation about that but instead just use the old method Descartes introduced to instill radical doubt about anything we cannot know with an absolute certainty (which he also claimed in the same book only GOD could guarantee - or CIG in this case). Which is insuffitient to explain what happened and therefore ultimately just empty rethorics. So until someone comes up with a better explanation (edit: and no it wasn't a server crash) I'll stick to this opinion :P

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

And so far you don't seem to give a better explanation about that but instead just use the old method Descartes introduced to instill radical doubt about anything we cannot know with an absolute certainty (which he also claimed in the same book only GOD could guarantee - or CIG in this case). Which is insuffitient to explain what happened and therefore ultimately just empty rethorics. So until someone comes up with a better explanation (edit: and no it wasn't a server crash) I'll stick to this opinion :P

As I said originally, you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't go expecting everyone to share it.

I don't stand by Decartes work, more phenomenological angles whereby one can add philosophy back into post-modernism which, in part thanks to Decartes, was stripped away.

Your reading of the events (which informs your opinion) does not separate you from the subject matter to be able to take an objective overview - not only are you a backer invested financially awaiting the game, you are also using your subjective previous experience of organised corporations to lead you to a conclusion that has no foundation.

Unfortunately I have only been reading into Phinomonology for a short while so can't claim to be able to provide an accurate analysis, so instead, lets try the following:

Lets mentally remove ourselves from the subject - We are no longer backers, we no longer have any previous experience of corporations or business entities - and we are no longer Human. We do not hunger, we do not lust, we do not want. We can only observe and ask "Are there any additional details?" and "So what does that mean?"

Your angle is:

I for one think they intentionally held back and suppressed internal concerns at least in order to generate hype for SQ42 supposed release in 2017 for one.

Okay, so what do we have. The 2017 shout out to "Answer The Call" with the little quiz. It is still on site on the S42 page and the question is still the same:

"Answer this question and join recruits in receiving the Squadron 42 monthly newsletter."

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/squadron42

Are there any additional details? Yes, once you answer the question and input an email address, the page states:


"Success!
You've been added to the Squadron 42 mailing list."

So... it appears that the hype was to get backers to sign up to updates on Squadron 42 which they may not have had permission to give you with the general mailing settings you'd already signed up to...

I think we've just answered the accusation. The game wasn't close to ready and they weren't trying to squeeze money out of you by tricking you into thinking the game was on the way but then didn't launch like it should have. Looks like they just wanted your permission to send you updates on another part of the Star Citizen universe...

That was quick.

There is my evidence and my conclusion. :slight_smile:

 

[Montoya]

I don't stand by Decartes work, more phenomenological angles whereby one can add philosophy back into post-modernism which, in part thanks to Decartes, was stripped away.

I had dig in deep, back to first year philosophy lectures to understand that... Good thing I paid attention that first semester! :D

The rest of the semesters, not so much.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I had dig in deep, back to first year philosophy lectures to understand that... Good thing I paid attention that first semester! :smile:

The rest of the semesters, not so much.

I would have loved to have looked into that kind of thing. Had to shoehorn it into my other studies but didn't get to look into it very deeply :)

 

[Ploeperpengel]

As I said originally, you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't go expecting everyone to share it.

I can't accept this sentence. With this we are back to where we started with the whole Millennial-Situation. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion that's just davalueing reason entirely. If I make a claim in a serious discussion I expect poeple to consider it and give reason not to share it if they don't share my view. I on the other hand am totally willing to change my opinion on matters if someone gives me good reason for it. A phrase like that is just a lazy way out.

I don't stand by Decartes work, more phenomenological angles whereby one can add philosophy back into post-modernism which, in part thanks to Decartes, was stripped away.

Lost you there. Phenomenology was before Post-Modernism but you describe it as some sort of reaction to it. And you also seem to claim Descartes stripped away Philosophy out of post-modernism while he is commonly perceived as a founder of modern philosophy which naturally precedes post-modernism. I might misinterprete sentences at times as I'm not a native speaker. Care to elaborate?

Your reading of the events (which informs your opinion) does not separate you from the subject matter to be able to take an objective overview - not only are you a backer invested financially awaiting the game, you are also using your subjective previous experience of organised corporations to lead you to a conclusion that has no foundation.

I'd never claim anyone can be entirely objective. But I claim to be relatively objective in this regard in terms of not being overly invested into the matter emotionally despite having invested. I'm not one of thoses salty whiners on spectrum I'm not. I'm basically just saying CIG isn't as transparent as poeple think they should be. I'm not even complaining because I think it's a necessity. And your claim that my claim has no foundation is still missing it's foundation :)

Unfortunately I have only been reading into Phinomonology for a short while so can't claim to be able to provide an accurate analysis, so instead, lets try the following:

Lets mentally remove ourselves from the subject - We are no longer backers, we no longer have any previous experience of corporations or business entities - and we are no longer Human. We do not hunger, we do not lust, we do not want. We can only observe and ask "Are there any additional details?" and "So what does that mean?"

Your angle is:


Okay, so what do we have. The 2017 shout out to "Answer The Call" with the little quiz. It is still on site on the S42 page and the question is still the same:

"Answer this question and join recruits in receiving the Squadron 42 monthly newsletter."

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/squadron42

Are there any additional details? Yes, once you answer the question and input an email address, the page states:


"Success!
You've been added to the Squadron 42 mailing list."

So... it appears that the hype was to get backers to sign up to updates on Squadron 42 which they may not have had permission to give you with the general mailing settings you'd already signed up to...

I think we've just answered the accusation. The game wasn't close to ready and they weren't trying to squeeze money out of you by tricking you into thinking the game was on the way but then didn't launch like it should have. Looks like they just wanted your permission to send you updates on another part of the Star Citizen universe...

That was quick.

There is my evidence and my conclusion. :slight_smile:

And there we have some meat. I wouldn't even mind admitting to be totally wrong regarding this particular event. I wasn't the most attentive follower of this projects' developement the last couple of years. I only have a rough memory of this which is why I said from the beginning there are others more qualified to judge where CIG fucked up the most. However, even if this particular event was just a misinterpretation by the fanbase leaning towards a confirmation of a release wouldn't you agree that promises were made and broken countless times before and after? Come on be serious! This is not a totally open developement. The community is not involved nor informed of internals except for elected pieces that are being published. CIG is just using marketing strategies as anyone else. Basically: promote the good, play down the bad and just don't comment on what you can't justify at all...