SidAlpha responds to Montoya
- Thread starter sovapid
- Start date
Radegast74
Space Marshal
I've made it halfway through the video (so far) & I don't think it was a very good video (so far). There are a number of premises he makes that aren't true, he strings them together, and then he arrives at a conclusion that (while logical) is based on faulty logic and not true.
Like @DirectorGunner mentioned, the funding goals ("stretch goals") applied to the game as conceptualized back in 2012 - early 2014. There has been a significant increase in the scope of the game. They money raised since then has been to develop technology that frankly has not been developed and/or perfected (like procedural cities -- remember your "Pipe Dream" video?) that will enable CR to achieve his vision. Whether you like CR or not, you have to acknowledge that he is trying to do something no other game/studio is even attempting (that we know of).
The other thing this YouTuber is trying to convey is that CR is some kind of deranged leader who either micromanages or leads through fear & intimidation and people are afraid to say "No" to. I don't work at CIG, so I don't have any direct proof. But, he doesn't work at CIG either, so where is his proof? I remember Erin Roberts has (in the past) acted as a foil to Chris and has said "No" (I'm thinking of the CitizenCon demo, where they had limited time and Erin said they didn't have the resources to do both a SQ42 demo and the demo that later became the "Sandworm" demo).
Maybe I'll watch the rest of the video tomorrow. BTW, what is up with the SC video he is showing, it looks like it is from pre- 3.2...& he doesn't do anything except run around Olisar. Kind of like he is trying to prove his point there has been no increase in content by ignoring all current new content.
I think both of you guys should make a show discussing in a fair factual manner the pro and cons of the SC development.
This would be probably more interesting to watch than creating videos with replys
Then kiss
Take the time to really evaluate all the angles, look objectively at facts and not use speculation as the basis for forming opinions about this whole thing. The bottom line to me, Sid's attitude is based on speculation. Really... YouTube should start requiring classes to be taken on basic journalism ethics (researching primary sources and due diligence) in order to have reporting/opinion type channels. It used to be when you had speculative crazy opinions and screamed them into the forest/ether... hardly no one would come/give you attention.... now because of the internet... you can emotionally charge literally anything to get listeners into the SJW mentality and just amass a huge group to listen to you. This year is the SJW year on YouTube I think... or at least it seems to me... I say... Gamergate that shit! Moderates need to step the fuck up and take the internet back from the 2% of crazies dominating it. We need the world's Michael Jordans... to start dominating YouTube.
how about his statement "I hardly ever hear about anything meaningful being developed for the game" At least I think that is what he said.
Frad in'Ryth
Vice Admiral
@Michael I'd love to see something like that. Run it through Youtube Live, Twitch, Tinder, what ever and manage the format like a true debate. Give each person a week to review the questions to be asked, there will be no gotcha moments etc. At the end of the determined time for a response mute that person and move on. Allow 2 minutes for answers and then 30 seconds for rebuttal for instance.
Radegast74
Space Marshal
lol, YouTube journalism...ethics...LMAO
now because of the internet, *crazy dude* can make a *batshit crazy* video, and both he & YouTube can make a bunch of money off it!
Sadly, I don't see anything changing, any time soon. We just have to be a bit more pro-active about bringing idiotic statements to light and rebutting them (without driving any *crazy* persons YouTube stats up & giving them more money.
I have a bunch of things to say, it will probably be more efficient if I just create new threads for each separate...thread of thought...instead of hijacking this thread.
But if ships were not on the table, then no one would buy anything. People can beat the "this is for supporting game development and not about ships, those are just extra" horse as much as they want, but IT IS for ships. Remove them from the equation and NOBODY would pledge. I am betting my hidden stash of beer kegs on that one. I have yet to see someone say - here is $2,500. Just make the game. I don't want that Idris. Keep it. Yeah....not gonna happen anytime soon.
They call it a "pledge" and not a "purchase", because they can deny refunds this way. In the EU, where I live, this is considered a "pre-order" and not a donation and there are grounds for asking for a refund, since it is a "pre-purchase" of digital goods and if they don't deliver - you have the right to ask for your money back. What "play on words" CIG chooses to use and what the reality is are two completely different things. Their ever changing ToS bullshit deserves a discussion of it's own, but I won't get into that here.
With that said - I don't blame them. The amount of fickle people out and about who would scream bloody murder at the first hint of delays and changes and ask for their money back would be astonishingly high and would probably mess with their financials and development plans quite a bit. So they chose to go that route.
And since I started the funding subject - I do agree with SidAlpha that if the money they have raised is not enough, then this thing is in trouble. I also don't buy the "Star Citizen needs more money to pay it's employees" argument. If Chris Roberts is unable to "ration" his funds and plan accordingly when opening new studious and adding new features - that's on him. If I want to make a game and I ask a publisher for money he would give me, say $10,000,000. In those I need to factor-in salaries, running costs, tech costs and so on. If I overextend the publisher would probably finance me further a few times but it will come to a point where they just outright tell me NO and I need to make due with the money that has been given to me. In the case of SC - we are the publisher. Except we have no idea how CIG/RSI is managing their finances. This is where SidAlpha is coming from and I completely agree with him.
With that being said, I don't believe that that is the reason why we keep seeing ship sales. It's because the bloody thing is a gold mine. NO matter what bullshit they pull off in terms of LTI, Warbond or whatever other crap they come up with, people still throw money at them. And let's not kid ourselves - Chris Roberts isn't making this out of the kindness of his heart. It's a business and a profitable one at that. Why would he stop selling those ships? I know I wouldn't if I was in his place. Just look at all the people who just HAVE TO HAVE the next ship that is out.
It's actually quite amazing - even with all the bad press this game is getting it's still raking in millions.
That is actually one of the more interesting stats I am following.
I feel that levels of hate and bad press had made a short term peak a few weeks before we went to Evocati on 3.2.
I was curious to see how it might have affected funding levels.
Even with all the raging, they still did $1.7M for the month of June.
I agree if there were no reward no one would spend, that is how successful crowd funders work... however your personal reasons for spending are not CIG's problem, they have told you how it works and you have ticked a box agreeing to it in the Terms Of Service and have handed over your pledge funds. They have also gone out of their way to point out when the game goes live what you have spent is not going to reflect on how much things cost - A Gemini pistol cost 20,000 UEC in the Voyager Direct store and 20,000 UEC cost roughly $20. When we get in game, the final game, and you can earn a Gemini pistol in one twenty minute mission, it's going to be painfully clear so some and there will be butt-hurt, and on that day I will link to this post and say "we always knew this".
The EU didn't solidify that legislation until 2015. The game had been calling it "pledge" and had been treating rewards as rewards and not purchases since 2012. So... Where do we stand?
In the T's and C's it does state that as well as making the game and the pledge items, the money is running the servers, website etc. If they are just wracking up the $$$ thats more money to fund the running of the game when it gets to live. Potentially, if it is just "greed", this could be a plan to keep the game free to play for years... Whats worse, letting rich dudes over-fund now making it free for everyone to play later, or stop taking pledge funds now and impose a $10 subscription when the game goes live? But I don't know that just as much as Sidney Alpha does not know what is going on. We have no idea, however I have just said something that sounds viable and sounds good where he has said something that sounds viable and sounds bad. Does that mean he shouldn't say his theory? Nope. does that mean I shouldn't say mine? Nope. But I know they are both just theories... I'm not trying to convince you that my theory is the only valid one.
Last edited:
Semperviren
Vice Admiral
I liked his video and I think he makes some valid points. That being said, I'm still of the opinion that most of these arguments are a bit of a waste if you just boil everything down to the simple and undeniable truth that spending money on any goods, digital or otherwise, is buyers choice. If you leave it at that there's not much leftover need for accusations of greed or benevolence.
2c have been input, where is my cookie?
2c have been input, where is my cookie?
I think we don't need to defend it at all tbh.
You won't change minds with these back and forth's. What will eventually change peoples mind is a working game. That will take some more years. So why bother now.
The only thing that will happen is a bad rep. of the Star Citizen community because the supporters are so defensive. I would prefer if the community would just say "Just wait and see. I don't know if it will work in the end. But maybe it will and that's what I am here for. The possibility of having a great game."
If people think the 2.5k pack is a money grab .. yea maybe. But it doesn't bother me as long as the entry level stays the same.
I'm just stating that ships are the incentive and as much as people are trying to say that they are just donating, because there are those that do, they are not. They are buying ships. I am however not arguing your point - yes, when buying something you should first do a bit of research before spending. It's only common sense. And yes they have also stated multiple times that what you are paying for now, with real money, does not reflect the actual cost in-game. I'm not arguing that.
I do agree that there will also be a lot of people being buttsore, as Hurk put it, that that guy with the $45 Game Package has earned an Idris too, while the buttsore person spent $2,500 on it. Mark my words, there will be drama. The amount of "ship elitism" that is being displayed on Spectrum is quite worrying, at least to me.
As for SidAlpha not covering all angles and points of view, well.. He is stating HIS opinion. He can hate or support this game however much he likes and is in no way obligated to be unbiased. Whether someone is swayed by him, in one direction or the other, or not, is their own decision. Free speech and all that. You can't, however, argue that he doesn't raise some completely valid points - is funds mismanagement an issue? Is scope creep an issue? Those questions need to be asked and CIG needs to be held accountable. People seem to forget that Roberts gets to make the game the way he does because of US. If nobody funded this, with their OWN money, he'd have had to go to a publisher, who would have limited his scope and gotten this project out of the door a LONG time ago.
There is no such thing as greed in business.
When a company do what ever it take within the walls of law to keep growing that's just good business. Period!
Something most people have a hard time to keep apart.
Greed happen with in the walls of a company that's something you rarely see unless it make headlines.
Most common reason for salt on a company is a consumer that can't afford what's been offered but they want it, then the salt attacks starts.
( it's called envy ) something very few admit they have or are the reason for being salty.
Example of human nature:
Your employer treat you great give you lots of perks for you're really doing a good job.
So you praise them high in your social media and how much you love your job..
Then one day the thing that happen with human happen you make a small mistake and that get you fired.
Oh! how your social media suddenly is filed with hate and that shaming company just fired you for nothing and bla bla bla bla....
It's easy to start being salty on others because they are but only thing that prove is your no better yourself.!
CHEERS! :beer::beer::beers::beers::beers::beer::beers::beer::beers:
When a company do what ever it take within the walls of law to keep growing that's just good business. Period!
Something most people have a hard time to keep apart.
Greed happen with in the walls of a company that's something you rarely see unless it make headlines.
Most common reason for salt on a company is a consumer that can't afford what's been offered but they want it, then the salt attacks starts.
( it's called envy ) something very few admit they have or are the reason for being salty.
Example of human nature:
Your employer treat you great give you lots of perks for you're really doing a good job.
So you praise them high in your social media and how much you love your job..
Then one day the thing that happen with human happen you make a small mistake and that get you fired.
Oh! how your social media suddenly is filed with hate and that shaming company just fired you for nothing and bla bla bla bla....
It's easy to start being salty on others because they are but only thing that prove is your no better yourself.!
CHEERS! :beer::beer::beers::beers::beers::beer::beers::beer::beers:
That is the main argument from the other side.
SC is taking advantage of the backers involved by "forcing" them to buy bigger and more expensive ships.
Very true :)
Roberts did go to publishers - they all told him there is no money in Space Sims and no one wanted them, and that they wouldn't take it on. The kickstarter was his last-ditch attempt to get $500k to make a proof-of-concept to go back to the publishers with, I know what you mean if he'd only got $500k he'd be at the whim of a publisher right now and if he hadn't even got $500k that would have been that... I don't deny perhaps the technical aspect dragged on too long... Dev seems to be pickup up now so finders crossed :)
Yeah! ha ha ha ha... Think it's hilarious and it always give me the urge to make some popcorn :popcorn::popcorn::beer::beers:
Oh What? they're taking advantage of me oh nooo, I feel so used... NOT! :joy:
I will echo what SidAlpha said - Roberts is a visionary. He has great ideas, I don't doubt that. But whether they can come to fruition is a different thing altogether. Can the current technology support that? And is it right to delay the game until such a time comes that something is possible? What if that something can be done 5 years down the line? Should the game be delayed until then?
The problem I have with the guy is that he wants this and that, and this and that, and there is no end to what he wants in the game. And he loves to promise things. There must come a point where they say - this is what we are launching with. Other things will be added later on. As is custom now with MMOs. I certainly hope there is somebody to reign him in. People do need to hear "NO" from time to time and be critiqued. Constructively, ofcourse.
I've learned more in my life from people being critical of me and my actions/work than "YES"-men and unbridled praise. Or it might be that I am twisted and prefer being scolded, who knows...
But yes, I do like what I am seeing in terms of progress this year. I also like that their focus for 3.3 is finally delivering OCS and NBC and that they are willing to push other things back in order for those to make it. I say screw Repair, Salvage and all the other things. What good is engaging in any of those professions if the game runs like shit? It kills all the joy. At least for me. I have had the fortune of playing this thing on empty PTU servers and my God is it a different game when it is running at 60-70 frames.