Star Citizen Scoops, Musings and Blogs

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

Fair enough, but Derek said backers talking about those polls were lying in his blog and that, again, simply isn't true. The second poll had an answer that contained those words I quoted and 88% of voters chose that option. Is it a lie to say backers voted for extra features? Of course it isn't. It's just Derek's ridiculous hyperbole again.

[Motto]

Oh just stop feeding the troll....

[StanTheMan]

I find it quite silly to point towards are poll generally asking if people would want more...
That's like some rockband asking you if you'd wanted another album of them, while you liked the first on or the teasers for the first. Surely you'll say yes.
But that doesn't mean whatever comes after that is in really legitimized by your vote on another album.

The whole bullshit with StarCitizen is that CRoberts have lied about timetables and giving full insight into finances.
People simply can't make informed decision about additional features or what should be added if they're not informed of the costs. And people have never be informed of any of that with this 'great transparent' development project. Most budget wise estimations in terms of time have been bullshit.

Yes it is also ridiculous to sell a product then have some cretin defending the fact you issued a poll to a tiny subsection of customers you bumped into on a particular day and then think you can/should use that poll to justify delivering something completely different.

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

Reading what the cretin actually posted saves one looking cretinous oneself.

Have I defended anything at all in my recent post or have I simply suggested that calling those who have used the poll as evidence 'liars', isn't at all accurate?

Do yourself a favour and attempt to comprehend what I post before jumping in with the insults.

[dsmart]

Fair enough, but Derek said backers talking about those polls were lying in his blog and that, again, simply isn't true. The second poll had an answer that contained those words I quoted and 88% of voters chose that option. Is it a lie to say backers voted for extra features? Of course it isn't. It's just Derek's ridiculous hyperbole again.

This is why nobody here takes you seriously. You conveniently ignored the gist of why the poll was nonsense; while latching onto "oh the majority". Here, I'll post it again.

"Each time it comes up that the game’s scope had been increased to a level that had set the project on a course to failure, CIG and their devout cultists would trot out the “backers voted for scope increase” lie, and which they have since used as an excuse for the project’s on-going demise. They completely disregard points raised that the poll data doesn’t show any consensus or agreement in any of the options, since not even a simple majority agreed on any one option despite each participant being allowed to select three choices. They were given three votes each, and they still failed to put any of the choices above a 40% support threshold; suggesting that there was no majority support from the community for any of the stretch goal choices in the poll. As some pointed out, given three instead of one choice should have ultimately pushed any choice to 50% or higher. In the end, the poll clearly showed that CIG did the poll, ignored the results, then went on to increase the scope of the project – even beyond the poll choices! That basically negated the poll in its entirety, thus rendering it moot."

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

I can't decide if you play dumb to troll me, play dumb to attempt to rile me or are just really fucking dumb.

I wasn't arguing the poll was relevant or wasn't nonsense, have a try at reading what I type. I was merely suggesting that calling people liars, as you did in your blog, for seeing 88% of votes going to an option that includes the words 'extra features' and saying that the backers voted for extra features is incredibly unfair. They aren't lying are they? They may not have your super powers of deduction to ascertain the validity of the poll, but lying? Totally unfair.

I didn't argue the poll was relevant or accurate or a big enough sample or anything else, only that calling people liars for saying what they say is ridiculous.

[StanTheMan]

The new blog on the Forbes article is great.

http://dereksmart.com/2019/05/star-citizen-requiem-for-a-dream/

Re reading this https://i.imgur.com/nKNau2Z.jpg explains a lot of things including why anyone who worked at CIG straight out of college is going to have such a crippling experience of the modern work environment it may well stunt their future careers for that reason alone regardless of what specialism they are in. 

[jwh1701]

The new blog on the Forbes article is great.

Greatly enjoyed reading this, it still amazes me they have made it so far not including the 46m.

[dsmart]

Greatly enjoyed reading this, it still amazes me they have made it so far not including the 46m.

Yeah, it really shows the power of sunk cost fallacy and religion. These guys still funding it know - with full confidence - that it's FUBAR; but they're still hanging on.

[Scruffpuff]

Yeah, it really shows the power of sunk cost fallacy and religion. These guys still funding it know - with full confidence - that it's FUBAR; but they're still hanging on.

It's simply a death march, with every sign of the associated pathologies.

[wiser3754]

Derek just tweeted,

BREAKING : Star Citizen project is once again running out of money. That explains why they haven't released their 2018 financials yet; even though they got a $46M bailout investment in summer 2018. Developing story. More to come as it unfolds.

Derek, are you trying to get yourself spite pledged again? Let the backers find out the hard way and let them dictate what they want to do with CRobbers and CIG should this story be established as indisputable fact.

[dsmart]

Derek, are you trying to get yourself spite pledged again? Let the backers find out the hard way and let them dictate what they want to do with CRobbers and CIG should this story be established as indisputable fact.

Well in 2015 after sources told me they only had 90 days of funding (later proven to be true when they released then financials in 2017) left, the spite pledging totally worked out because it saved them from going bust in RL, though they were bust on paper. :)

Anyway, there's a lot more info that I haven't yet divulged because my sources are still connecting the dots and will get back to me. But it's bad.

You can follow the thread below when I update it in the coming days

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1138964850506457088

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

Proven to be correct? You what? You were adamant they were collapsing within that time, all gone, no more game. Definitely not proven correct. Lol.

How bad is it this time? It's been really bad before, many times, yet they're still chugging along...

They're not just going to throw the towel in just because you want them to. As long as there are options to continue development, they'll utilise them. Investment, loans, selling their grandmothers, (aka Idris and javelins), more frequent sales etc.

They'll definitely get through to squadron release. What happens after that is dependant on the number of units sold.

[dsmart]

My latest

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1139208106557288449

[dsmart]

Proven to be correct? You what? You were adamant they were collapsing within that time, all gone, no more game. Definitely not proven correct. Lol.

Nice try. In case you hadn't noticed, most of us just ignore you now.