Something about a cave and shadows, and the shadows are the reality... I dunno, I gave up by that point.
CIG wants $20 for the Citizencon livestream
- Thread starter Montoya
- Start date
The whacky fun they must have had comeing up with that haha.
Just as time had obscured your memory of the 2017 Answer The Call issue, it appears time had obscured mine on this occasion - It's been over 6 years since I last had to think about things of said nature, "Modernism" rather than "Post-modernism" would have been accurate but in my defense one did follow and could be said to have come from the other, if indeed most-modernity even existed at all in the classical sense...
As for Descartes, you yourself mentioned him in the context of sewing doubt being a locked perspective "...the old method Descartes introduced to instill radical doubt about anything we cannot know with an absolute certainty..." Philosophy previously strove to understand the world, Descartes, to oversimplify it, came to the conclusion that there is nothing we can ever know other than that we are. Not saying he didin't have a point, but when the world comes to that conclusion you may as well stamp G.A.M.E.O.V.E.R. on any attempts to have a further thought, or further analysis, that is not sceptical.
The accusation of "Liar" is an emotional response. Cheese is cheese, trees are trees, and bad liars are people who have tricked people and then been discovered - It is the discovery of the deception that leads to the accusation of "Liar" as an emotional response to the deception. If you were not emotional about the circumstances, if you were not fussed or not bothered, would you call the perpetrator a liar? Does a child call their mother and father "Liar" when they find out Santa does not exist? I have yet to witness that - I think it is because a childs emotional response rarely leads them to the true conclusion that mum and dad lied.
Ah! This is where I misinterpreted you, I see where you are coming from now. Yes, I agree, there is total transparency and then there is being more transparent than most others. To be fair to CIG in "The Pledge" statement they said:
"We, the Developer, intend to treat you with the same respect we would give a publisher. You will receive regular updates about the progress of the game. We will do a show and tell for each major milestone."
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/the-pledge
There is a world of different between getting an update and getting 100% access to all information contained within the company - perhaps that is where people have been confused about "Transparency"? CyberPunk, as an example, have not been transparent. Since 2012, until very recently, they have been absolutely silent. That is the difference in transparency between CIG and other game companies - we get almost daily updates.
The phrase "treat you with the same respect we would give a publisher" is entirely dependent on the developer/publisher relationship. If the publisher (us) uses communication methods (spectrum) to call them shit every day (A fair percentage of daily posts on spectrum), then they'd probably have a lot less respect for the publisher, no...? Respect goes both ways, and unsubstantiated claims of "Liar" is not respecting anyone.
If that is true then all you need to do is to substantiate your claim and my counterclaim will totally collapse, just as I collapsed your 2017 "Answer the call" point by providing the web-page... All I need is your evidence, just as I provided mine.
And this is where being able to substantiate your claims is vital.
You make another claim in the above sentence that "promises were made and broken countless times", but every single backer when they pledge tick the box that says "I agree" when they put their money down. That box tells you to read the Terms Of Service which advise that as a game in development in Alpha things are subject to change:
Further to this, in The Pledge, the following line exists:
"There may be delays and there may be changes; we recognize that such things are inevitable and would be lying to you if we claimed otherwise."
They covered it in 2012. Everything is subject to change during the development phase, I agreed, you agreed, we all agreed that this is the case.
I don't think it says anywhere in the Terms of Service, or The Pledge that it's intended to be totally 100% open development...? Can you point me to where it says that? The Pledge does say "When we need to change a mechanic or alter something you believe should be in the game, we will tell you exactly why"... but to this date, as far as I can recall, they have. Star Marine and the 3rd party making it to the wrong scale, The Cutlass, the 300 series... these all had/have issues and they all changed/are changing and we've been told why. We may not like or believe what we heared, but we were told it.
As for CIGs marketing, I don't know. You may be right about that. :smile:
Last edited:
It is a shame, whether well intentioned or not CIG dropped a bollock with the pay to watch so we can sell you stuff, (apparently new expensive drake ship incoming that you can pay to see). People strongly defend them like it is a religion. It is not the first mistake and it wont be the last. It is not the end of the world etc but they did fuck up and where rightly called on it.
My question is, how much ad revenue will CiG make from the YouTube replays of the event? More or less than enough to cover all of the costs of the extra filming company?
And I'm asking because I do not stream and do not know how much a company could make with viewership like CiG would see from a live event and then re-plays of the live event.
And I'm asking because I do not stream and do not know how much a company could make with viewership like CiG would see from a live event and then re-plays of the live event.
I do not believe CIG has monetizes their YouTube videos. Just double checked and none of the 10 videos i checked had any ads.