this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
170 points (93.4% liked)
PC Gaming
8781 readers
672 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can blame CIG for the monetization game, you can blame anyone doing it. Especially when the goal post gets moved over and over and over. When the goal post was placed specifically to increase monetization. I'm glad people like them game at it's current state, but it's hard to argue that there arnt some ethical monetization issues at hand.
It's hard to agree with that when you can buy in for $40 and get 2 games.
2 games? I was promised one of those games in 2016. The other is starting to resemble a game after a decade, but still not a "game".
Nobody was promised anything in 2016. I backed in 2014 with the express knowledge that the pledge was to support the development of two games at whatever pace it took to do it to the standards they stated from the beginning, and not to compromise for the sake of delivering something less than that. They have been very clear from the beginning that it was not going to be a quick release, but a release that upheld the dreams they were putting on paper. THAT'S what you backed, and they have been very clear about that since day 1.
And the fact that many people have hundreds or thousands of hours in the 'verse at this point tells me it's plenty of a game at this point for people to have gotten their money's worth.
I know i paid less than $100 for my package and have more hours in the game than more than half my stream library, so seems like a game to me.... And one that's been plenty worth my entertainment dollars.
Answer the Call in 2016, not ringing any bells??
That was never announced as a solid release date for SQ42. Yes, there was branding on the page that COULD have been interpreted that way, but there was never a statement or announcement saying that was happening. CitizenCon the same year they announced there were delays that were going to prevent what they HOPED would be released in 2016, as is quite common, particularly when the scope of the project changes as much as it did due to stretch goals and increased scope. They then provided a multitude of new tools and platforms for people to understand the behind the scenes and current progress so further miscommunication would hopefully be minimized.
So you're saying there was mismanagement and feature creep which led to a delay of 8 years?
Not even close, but nice straw man!
How's it a strawman? Development delays are typically in the tune of months after the given date, not nearly a decade. From what I can see, they massively moved the goalposts and at the last I heard, they were ignoring or denying requests for refunds despite not having delivered what was promised to paying clients. Accusations of mismanagement are nothing compared to the fraud it could be argued to be in a courtroom. Just sayin'
It's a straw man because that's not at all what was said, and you're misrepresenting things to make your point easier. That's the very definition of a straw man.
They haven't moved any goal posts. They haven't been screwing anybody or failing to meet any promises, and have in fact been rather transparent about goals and expectations while NOT making hard commitments on timelines because of the revolutionary nature of the technology they are trying to develop. People backed a very ambitious dream BECAUSE it was ambitious, but the developer promised that they would take the time to do it right by delivering that dream rather than rush out some bullshit like traditional publishers have been doing for years.
One thing I've found is people are REALLY bad at reading comprehension or failing entirely to pay attention to things that are plainly communicated. There's years and years of consistent messaging, and from day 1 they've been very up front about what expectations should be. Refunds won't be given and fraud doesn't exist when you pledge to back a development project that is doing exactly what they said they would do.
This isn't a game you purchase off the shelf, it was a crowd funded project that has from the beginning been very clear about everything you should expect. People are just terrible at actually listening.
There hasn't been mismanagement. There hasn't been feature creep. People have gotten exactly what they paid for. They contributed to a project in development, and were given access to play a game they helped fund while it's being developed. It's not CIGs fault those people didn't know what they were donating funds for despite them being told exactly what they were paying for. You can see the trail of communications saying exactly that since the Kickstarter.
The game exists. The game is playable. They are regularly delivering patch after patch and moving steadily towards not one but two products that are well within the design and scope as originally billed.
They are absolutely delivering, and the people who say otherwise either have an agenda, or haven't been paying attention.
Jus sayin'
That sounds like some mighty fine Kool-Aid. You keep sipping; sounds like it's doing your fragile ego wonders.