Star Pilgrim
Rear Admiral
I fully support reselling of rare ships, so no biggie there.
Imposing rarity is idiocy which stems from todays consumerism+epeen culture.
I say if you have the cash, buy a million if you can.
[CONCERN] What if he was right?
- Thread starter D3Mark
- Start date
Imposing rarity is idiocy which stems from todays consumerism+epeen culture.
I say if you have the cash, buy a million if you can.
thanatos73
Space Marshal
I don't see the point of limiting ships that we will be able to get in the PU. Take the Cutlass Blue, I will be able to get one, in game, once the PU is live, so why can't I get one now, for real money? Or the M50? Neither of them are, in lore, some super secret military ships, nor are they captured alien ships. Why limit the sale?
Op4ArcticFox
Space Marshal
thanatos73
Space Marshal
Op4ArcticFox
Space Marshal
Not right now... but you can't buy anything else in game either lol.
But realistically, they have already said that the Vanduul ships will be objectively worse than the human ships. They have to make them that way or else humans wouldn't stand a chance of wining the war.
Add in people finding or capturing ships once PU is a larger thing. There will be anything and everything available, for a price.
But realistically, they have already said that the Vanduul ships will be objectively worse than the human ships. They have to make them that way or else humans wouldn't stand a chance of wining the war.
Add in people finding or capturing ships once PU is a larger thing. There will be anything and everything available, for a price.
I agree that limiting ship sales to increase "rarity" is rather pointless if the ships will be available for purchase in the persistent universe. While you may argue that the perception of rarity now can promote and substantiate a higher price now, I think in the aggregate they'd raise more money if they simply leave every ship for sale from when the ship is first released through when they cutoff pre-PU sales (i.e. before the game is released). I don't think there's much to worry about in terms of flooding the game with ships come day one either, as first, we as backers will only make up a part of the player base, and second, this whole 90% AI / 10% player thing. I say if 1,000 more people want to buy Javelins, then great, let 'em. That's $2.5 million assuming the concept sale price...
Now, I would loveeeeeeee for them to release for sale certain ships that would never be obtainable in-game. These ships should not be overpowered by ANY means, but could serve as neat collector items for those that backed the game and forked up the money for an ACTUAL rare item. Think EVE and its rare ships like the tournament ones, etc.
Now, I would loveeeeeeee for them to release for sale certain ships that would never be obtainable in-game. These ships should not be overpowered by ANY means, but could serve as neat collector items for those that backed the game and forked up the money for an ACTUAL rare item. Think EVE and its rare ships like the tournament ones, etc.
Op4ArcticFox
Space Marshal
That is such shit. I didn't take "The Escapist" seriously before, now they are just dead to me. Having worked in games for years, they have more than once written inflammatory pieces on projects that I know from working on them, were not in any way shape or form in the "Awful state of disarray" that they claimed we were in. My contract ends pretty soon where I am, maybe I will see if CIG has a place for me.
I would like to call for this thread to be laid to rest. The only [CONCERN] any of you need to have is when Montoya will get SOTS 11 out to us.
Star Pilgrim
Rear Admiral
Huegpaynis
Space Marshal
Pointing out the real problems here.
So after reading the piece by Chris Roberts, I was interested to read the piece that it actually points to.
If you are inclined, here is the article:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/14715-CIG-Employees-Talk-Star-Citizen-and-the-State-of-the-Company
After having read it, I was compelled to write a response. If they are claiming to be journalists, I think they should be held to the same standard.
Here is what I posted:
What's actually sad, is that I had never heard of Lizzy Finnegan nor the Excapist before this article. I read the piece because like most involved in the Star Citizen community, I was concerned of the allegations presented by Derek Smart.
Unfortunately, his posts were beligerant at best and did not have a level of competency I would hope would be necessary in making such important allegations. It is fun for me to read though. Unfortunately, your article is no better(and you are decidedly not Derek Smart) and doesn't give any more information nor credence to his posts. I understand the annonymous sources may seem to the Escapist to add a certain air of importance. Unfortunately, it is simply regurgitating on a topic that Chris Roberts and CIG cannot comment on since it is actually against the law and unethical for them to do so specifically. It is low hanging fruit for the Escapist to comment on this but I'm sure they have the right to "report" it. However, they have not given any further information as to the effective claim that Star Citizen is in fact defrauding its donors. This is the point of the article, if I am not mistaken and to this date, I have not read anything purporting to that accertion.
Having even a cursory look at the actual content provided by CIG, it would be easy to refute many of the accusations provided in your article however this has not been done and more over it seems that you have chosen not to. Asking for comment from CIG is a poor substitute for actually investigative journalism which your article seems to think itself to be. If this journalistic work had been done, further additional investigation could look at the people making these allegations and whether or not they are actually a good and credible source for this article. As a reader, I would have been actually interested in reading this. Further, it is clear that quotes from anonymous employees are important and is journalistic standard however when claiming that a particular project cannot be executed on an anonymous "industry veteran" is laughable. How are your readers supposed to know if this person has any validity as an industry veteran giving credence to the anonymous assertions made by ex-employees, alledgedly. This is not something that a reader can verify so having different quoteable sources in your article to support your accertion in all the more important. This was not done.
This either makes Lizzy Finnegan seems like either she is incompetent or on a defaming campaign and as a writer, that is not a very good position to be in, as a publication even less so. This is reaffirmed by the fact that she isn't clear on what an OpEd is as the OpEd she is pointing to early on does not share a particular opinion nor is she familiar with reasons why it is most important to include verifiable sources along side anonymous ones and how you should include both in a piece.
Further, I would think that as a journalist, the writer would also be concerned about having at least the perseption of being impartial on a subject. With the little I have seen so far of Lizzy Finnegan's work, this doesn't seem to be the case.
Since the first mentions for me of Lizzy Finnegan's work and the Escapist was in the Chris Roberts letter mentioned in this piece (I do not know of their other work but as with everything), the first impression is the most important one. As it is, my impression of the Escapist is not a very good one. I will not be interested in viewing any further content from this site as it has added nothing to this issue. If I want to read a defaming campaign, I will read Derek Smart. This is actually the one thing he seems to be good at from what I can tell.
Admitedly, I wouldn't really call myself a gamer because until Star Citizen, I was utterly not involved in games nor had I purchased any AAA games in about 5 to 7 years. I did play Ipad games though here and there, I can't lie. This might seem like my opinion does not matter but this should be your most important concern as well as your advertisers. If someone like me is this interested in a game, it is because it is a unique project and is important to report on and there is a high likely hood that there is propably a greater amount of people looking for unbiased information in this regard than just another defaming article. However, Lizzy Finnegan and the Escapist has chosen to defame this project. This might be something to think about when you consider your advertisers and the loss of opportunity from me and other readers like myself. Since your piece is decidedly not unbiased, you are actually loosing in the long run because you will be known as a provider of unreliable information and further calls into question your previous work as well.
It is ironic that Lizzy Finnegan and the Escapist have written and published this piece about a company alledgidly acting in an ethical matter. From my perspective, it is your own conduct that seems questionable.
If you are inclined, here is the article:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/14715-CIG-Employees-Talk-Star-Citizen-and-the-State-of-the-Company
After having read it, I was compelled to write a response. If they are claiming to be journalists, I think they should be held to the same standard.
Here is what I posted:
What's actually sad, is that I had never heard of Lizzy Finnegan nor the Excapist before this article. I read the piece because like most involved in the Star Citizen community, I was concerned of the allegations presented by Derek Smart.
Unfortunately, his posts were beligerant at best and did not have a level of competency I would hope would be necessary in making such important allegations. It is fun for me to read though. Unfortunately, your article is no better(and you are decidedly not Derek Smart) and doesn't give any more information nor credence to his posts. I understand the annonymous sources may seem to the Escapist to add a certain air of importance. Unfortunately, it is simply regurgitating on a topic that Chris Roberts and CIG cannot comment on since it is actually against the law and unethical for them to do so specifically. It is low hanging fruit for the Escapist to comment on this but I'm sure they have the right to "report" it. However, they have not given any further information as to the effective claim that Star Citizen is in fact defrauding its donors. This is the point of the article, if I am not mistaken and to this date, I have not read anything purporting to that accertion.
Having even a cursory look at the actual content provided by CIG, it would be easy to refute many of the accusations provided in your article however this has not been done and more over it seems that you have chosen not to. Asking for comment from CIG is a poor substitute for actually investigative journalism which your article seems to think itself to be. If this journalistic work had been done, further additional investigation could look at the people making these allegations and whether or not they are actually a good and credible source for this article. As a reader, I would have been actually interested in reading this. Further, it is clear that quotes from anonymous employees are important and is journalistic standard however when claiming that a particular project cannot be executed on an anonymous "industry veteran" is laughable. How are your readers supposed to know if this person has any validity as an industry veteran giving credence to the anonymous assertions made by ex-employees, alledgedly. This is not something that a reader can verify so having different quoteable sources in your article to support your accertion in all the more important. This was not done.
This either makes Lizzy Finnegan seems like either she is incompetent or on a defaming campaign and as a writer, that is not a very good position to be in, as a publication even less so. This is reaffirmed by the fact that she isn't clear on what an OpEd is as the OpEd she is pointing to early on does not share a particular opinion nor is she familiar with reasons why it is most important to include verifiable sources along side anonymous ones and how you should include both in a piece.
Further, I would think that as a journalist, the writer would also be concerned about having at least the perseption of being impartial on a subject. With the little I have seen so far of Lizzy Finnegan's work, this doesn't seem to be the case.
Since the first mentions for me of Lizzy Finnegan's work and the Escapist was in the Chris Roberts letter mentioned in this piece (I do not know of their other work but as with everything), the first impression is the most important one. As it is, my impression of the Escapist is not a very good one. I will not be interested in viewing any further content from this site as it has added nothing to this issue. If I want to read a defaming campaign, I will read Derek Smart. This is actually the one thing he seems to be good at from what I can tell.
Admitedly, I wouldn't really call myself a gamer because until Star Citizen, I was utterly not involved in games nor had I purchased any AAA games in about 5 to 7 years. I did play Ipad games though here and there, I can't lie. This might seem like my opinion does not matter but this should be your most important concern as well as your advertisers. If someone like me is this interested in a game, it is because it is a unique project and is important to report on and there is a high likely hood that there is propably a greater amount of people looking for unbiased information in this regard than just another defaming article. However, Lizzy Finnegan and the Escapist has chosen to defame this project. This might be something to think about when you consider your advertisers and the loss of opportunity from me and other readers like myself. Since your piece is decidedly not unbiased, you are actually loosing in the long run because you will be known as a provider of unreliable information and further calls into question your previous work as well.
It is ironic that Lizzy Finnegan and the Escapist have written and published this piece about a company alledgidly acting in an ethical matter. From my perspective, it is your own conduct that seems questionable.
Op4ArcticFox
Space Marshal
NeoHelios_SC
Vice Admiral
Can we possibly adopt the same policy as CIG on this issue. As an org, TEST has grown in size & popularity, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least one person has considered using our forums as a platform to voice their own agendas. I don't feel like this is about censorship any more than a bar full of friendly patrons would invite a prohibition rally to the front door (1); CIG has the right idea. If people want to complain, let them do it on their OWN forums. Not here. As such, I feel like we should close this thread, and implement a rule, here, which denies a platform to the haters are obviously desperate for attention. I don't want TEST to become their cozy new home. TEST posturing aside (though I'm sure doomsayers would face much opposition) better to nip the problem in the bud. I honestly don't want to waste my time with them.
(1) for those non-US members, you may be surprised to discover that around the 1920's there was an anti-alcohol movement in the US which led to many "speak easy" bars, or "bars which served alcohol, secretly". I thought this example was relevant because you have a group of people (ie. Star Citizen players) who are minding their own business doing what they enjoy, being confronted against another group (DS et.al.) who want to "make it their business" to prevent We The Players from enjoying the game.
Doomsayers are free to have their own means of "voicing concerns" elsewhere; don't spread that shit here, in MY house!
(1) for those non-US members, you may be surprised to discover that around the 1920's there was an anti-alcohol movement in the US which led to many "speak easy" bars, or "bars which served alcohol, secretly". I thought this example was relevant because you have a group of people (ie. Star Citizen players) who are minding their own business doing what they enjoy, being confronted against another group (DS et.al.) who want to "make it their business" to prevent We The Players from enjoying the game.
Doomsayers are free to have their own means of "voicing concerns" elsewhere; don't spread that shit here, in MY house!
Op4ArcticFox
Space Marshal
While you aren't entirely wrong, at what point does it go from valid concern to crazy ranting. right?
Everyone here is in some aspect a fat of SC. So we hopefully shouldn't need to worry about it, but if that time comes where the crazies are posting here, the mods/admins will shut that down. And until then we can maintain open discourse on the subject. Yeah?
Everyone here is in some aspect a fat of SC. So we hopefully shouldn't need to worry about it, but if that time comes where the crazies are posting here, the mods/admins will shut that down. And until then we can maintain open discourse on the subject. Yeah?
Yeah, I like it. I would prefer to enter in a good discussion rather than preventing someone from venting their opinions which might be valid. Just my pov, if someone doesn't want to read the post, they can also unwatch or diregard it. It's all good.
Because people don't want that Dalek Fart shit plastered all over their face every day. It becomes tiresome.
Semphis Rythorn
Rear Admiral
Honestly im getting tired of that douche, he even went as far to grab a group from GG to further end his own agenda......i forgot that he will lower himself to any fucking level to get what he wants.
honestly from
- Having a beef with CR since WC1 just because chris beat him to the punch first
- punching a coke machine cause a developer turned him down
- claming he has a PHD (IN DEREKTOLOGY)
- the whole quest online fuckfest
-his faliure in making LOD due to the tech he got from quest online
- not paying coders and had the galls to threaten the coder with court charges and calling him a terrorist
-and he is a leader of a certain group in GG (which slippled my mind)
and not to mention the failures of every fucking game he had made/stolen. This is the man most the internet hates, nothing but a lowlife, weasel
who CLEARLY has a god complex even worse than Kayne west (and that is saying something), and the only reason he will ever exist is as a source of fucking entertainment when he rants like a whiny child with his twitlonger posts and his so called blogs.
How the fuck is he even married and has kids i will never know.....i can;'t believe this douche lives an hour from me.......
honestly from
- Having a beef with CR since WC1 just because chris beat him to the punch first
- punching a coke machine cause a developer turned him down
- claming he has a PHD (IN DEREKTOLOGY)
- the whole quest online fuckfest
-his faliure in making LOD due to the tech he got from quest online
- not paying coders and had the galls to threaten the coder with court charges and calling him a terrorist
-and he is a leader of a certain group in GG (which slippled my mind)
and not to mention the failures of every fucking game he had made/stolen. This is the man most the internet hates, nothing but a lowlife, weasel
who CLEARLY has a god complex even worse than Kayne west (and that is saying something), and the only reason he will ever exist is as a source of fucking entertainment when he rants like a whiny child with his twitlonger posts and his so called blogs.
How the fuck is he even married and has kids i will never know.....i can;'t believe this douche lives an hour from me.......
NeoHelios_SC
Vice Admiral
I stand by what I say, but you guys seem to have more trust in our community, and I will endeavor to trust YOUR instincts. I've dealt with too much GroupThink to know better. The price of freedom, as they say... well... you know the rest.